Our obsession with Presidents – part 2

source: Flickr.com

In the last post, I asserted that Presidents should rarely be identified as the chief cause of important political events and outcomes.  Rather, the political environment includes powerful forces that largely control presidential actions and thus ultimately determine presidential success.   

By recognizing the genuine power of that environment, Presidents can appear vulnerable.  They are in fact as likely to back pedal, and submit to circumstances, as they are to forge a new path forward.  This is not American’s view of Presidents.  However, it’s the reality Presidents face.     

Let’s consider public opinion as an environmental force.   

Political environment – public opinion

Over the past 2 decades, a sharp divergence in party support characterizes public approval of Presidents.  For example, today, very few Democrats support President Trump.  And, during his 8 year in office only a small fraction of Republicans supported President Obama. 

Referred to as partisan polarization, each party questions the legitimacy of the other, viewing opposing camps and policies as existential threats.  It’s an “us” versus “them” mindset. 

The hostilities encourage Presidents to nurture a relatively narrow base of loyal supporters.  That base represents power and any reduction in its size can severely weaken a President

Notice the causal connection:  The public opinion environment presents a course of action.  Presidents are free to reject it.  And, during the first few months after inauguration many devote efforts to reach across the aisle, develop unity, and draw support from the opposition. 

But bipartisan tactics risk alienating the base.  Eventually the opinion environment forces Presidents to choose, and they double-down on the sure bet – their loyal base.   

Boxed in

The growing power of partisan polarization is illustrated in the graph below, which documents public approval of presidents since FDR.  The horizontal line inside the boxes represent median public support for a specific president.  The length of the boxes – and the extended dotted lines depict the variance of that support (appropriately called Box and Whisker plots).   

Source Charles Franklin Twitter Oct 22, 2020

For example, FDR’s average support was nearly 60% and ranged from approximately 50% to over 80%.  President Truman’s average was much lower at about 40% percent.  Yet the range of Truman’s approval was far greater – just above 20% to almost 90%.   

Noteworthy are the box-and-whisker plots for President Obama and President Trump.  The comparatively small square for Obama portrays record stability in public approval – very little variance in approval – compare Presidents standard deviations in red at bottom of graph.  Before Obama, Gerald Ford held the record for the least variance – 7.1 standard deviation.  In addition, only Truman and Jimmy Carter’s average approval ratings were lower than Obama. 

These facts do not fit with many people’s image of President Obama.  After all, he ran on hope and unity.   

Yet, in Obama’s final year in office, a mere 12% of Republican’s approved of his presidency while 89% of Democrats did so – a record 77-point gap.  Polarization dominated his time in office.  He was the first president to average less than 20% approval from the opposition party.                

Now examine Trump’s approval.  The lowest recorded average approval and most stable.  He broke Obama’s records. 

This does fit with people’s image of President Trump.  A strong but small base of support and a relatively large opposition.  In January, only 7% of Democrats approved of Trump and 89% of Republicans – a new 82-point gap record. 

Polarizing times

How can two vastly different Presidents – in character and appearance – set similar records for polarized approval?  The news media will pinpoint Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, narcissism, and aggressive nature.  That make sense.    

However, what about Obama?  Did he cause the record polarization?      

The increasingly hostile opinion climate – not the presidents themselves – produced record polarization.

Personal traits are secondary.  Yes, personal qualities matter.  But against such strong headwinds, every President will struggle and eventually they seek cover among their base of support.   

In short, Presidents that govern in polarized times possess strikingly similar public approval profiles.    

Bottom Line

Many political observers think that if Trump loses next week, then the country can return to normal.  In fact, that is Joe Biden’s chief rationale to be President – return the country to normal. 

While promises can be persuasive on the campaign trail, ask yourself what is normal?  A return to the Obama years?  Recall, at the time Obama departed, he had the dubious distinction as the most polarizing President.  He also claimed the number 2 spot, and 5 of the top 8 polarization scores in history – G.W. Bush received the other 3. 

Ten of the most polarizing years occurred in the past 16 year period.  In this respect, Trump is not an outlier but an extension of a trend.  Like Bush and Obama before him, Trump set the record. 

In truth, the polarized environment made Trump’s ascent possible.    

So, don’t let Presidents cloud your vision of politics.  Resist the urge to attribute change to Presidents and keep an eye on the much larger political landscape.   Features in that landscape like Congress and partisan polarization circumscribe presidential power and influence important political outcomes. 

2 thoughts on “Our obsession with Presidents – part 2

  1. Mark. Very informative and clearly a strong argument for examining the overview. Given the strong social climates a question of interest is how do we measure the effectiveness of each office holder. Are national interests further through close allegiance to the party base or in moving with a priority on unity. Certainly Lincoln would stand out as the most partisan President given the circumstance but how closely he aligned with the party base is questionable.
    Very interesting blog stimulates many hypothesis


    1. There are various measures of presidential effectiveness and rankings of presidential performance – based on multi criteria (public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic mgt, moral authority, etc. see: rankings: https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall. Top three are generally, Lincoln, Washington, and FDR. However, it is merely a survey, asking various authors and historians to judge and rank. Another way to measure effectiveness is to compare campaign promises to actual outcomes. Does the president perform? Theoretically, one may expect a ‘base’ strategy to be least effective. However, in our era it may be more effective than any other tactic. When the stars align and the majority party in Congress has the numbers, pass as much as possible for the base – witness the Republican’s strategy with federal court nominees, Democrats Affordable Care Act passage and Republicans recent tax cuts. Its a matter of focus and priority. With such tight elections, razor thin and altering majorities in House and Senate, and strong partisanship, the base strategy may be the only way to go.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: