POLITICS: Still Hope and Change

Jan 19, 2010 No Comments by

Barack Obama Change

Barack Obama ran his successful 2008 presidential campaign based largely on the catchphrases “hope” and “change.” For every person that clung to these words and took them to heart, there was somebody else that would mock them, brushing them off as nothing more than campaign tools to win over the mindless. As cliché as it has become, these slogans continue to be the brunt of jokes in the world of politicos and cable talk shows. But a recent Pew Research Center poll shows that “hope” and “change” may be more than just empty phrases used by the first black president.

The results of the poll show that African-Americans are surprisingly optimistic about progress in the country, even in a time when the unemployment rate for blacks is 15.6 percent, much higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. Yet the Pew poll makes clear that African-Americans are significantly more upbeat than they were just two years ago. In a poll of nearly 3,000 people, when blacks were asked if they are better off than they were five years ago, 39 percent said yes in November of 2009 as opposed to just 20 percent in 2008. When asked if the future will be better for blacks, 53 percent responded yes while just 44 percent responded yes two years earlier.

About 76 percent of blacks also feel that blacks and whites get along either “very well” or “pretty well” compared to 69% in 2007. The poll also shows that a majority of blacks, roughly 53 percent, now believe blacks who fail to get ahead have their own actions to blame rather than discrimination, compared to about 34 percent who said so in 1994. Whether or not that is substantively true, the election of Barack Obama is credited for this large uptick in positive attitudes.

Attitudes of whites are notable as well. While 55 percent say the election has made no difference in improving race relations, 32 percent actually say President Obama’s election has improved race relations. One out of  three is a pretty substantial portion of the Caucasian population.

These results do not tell the whole story of course. Aside from the unemployment rate, there is more to consider when examining the current situation. Unfortunately, according to statistics, the standard-of-living gap between blacks and whites hasn’t narrowed. Likewise, African-Americans have suffered the consequences of the recession in the areas of health and education as well.

There is still much to improve by way of standard-of-living for African-American communities across our country. Discrimination still exists and much remains to be done before the United States can truly say racism is no longer an issue. President Obama’s election has, in fact, given (and continues to give) a sense of hope to a lot of people. Attitudes are changing — and that is a big step in the right direction.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

Politics

About the author

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet
  • http://jonblogden.com Jon Ogden

    It’s true that having an African-American president has been and will continue to be a wonderful symbol of hope and change for all Americans. It’s a terrific mark of optimism for all of us sick of racial conflict and oppression. But those that now say that “hope” and “change” are empty phrases are citing as evidence the lack of hope and change that have stemmed from Obama’s post-election actions. To stop the political jabs, Obama’s got to make some sweeping changes to government transparency. He’s also got to push much harder toward the bipartisanship he promised in his campaign.

    This is why, according to Commentary Magazine “Mr. Obama now has the highest disapproval rating in Gallup’s history for a president entering his second year in office.” Until he pushes for large-scale bipartisan change he’ll continue to find disapproval.

    • Steve Pierce

      Jon, while I agree the White House should continue to push for greater transparency in government and disagree that Obama hasn’t done enough to try to engage Republicans (he’s tried repeatedly, but they score more political points from obstructing than compromising; this is political common sense), I think you’re misreading the polling.

      First of all, I wouldn’t believe Commentary any further than I could throw them. If you’re going to get all lofty in talks of “bipartisanship,” a hard-right, neoconservative magazine like Commentary shouldn’t be your primary source of reason.

      Secondly, you’ve committed a fallacy in suggesting that Obama’s disapproval stems from a lack of bipartisanship and transparency without citing credible evidence to prove that notion.

      And third, there’s a much more readily acceptable reason for his polling decline: a bad economy. Obama actually only has the second-worst post-WWII presidential approval rating at the end of his first term. The worst? The Sainted Ronald Reagan, who I think we can all agree, regardless of partisanship, really bounced back polling-wise once the bad economy of the early 1980s turned around. In fact, it’s interest to note that, as Charles Franklin points out here, Obama and Reagan’s first year approval rating declines are nearly identical. Also similar? William Jefferson Clinton, who also entered office with an awful economy, but subsequently found a way to turn that into a second term, a thriving economy, a huge budgetary surplus and the highest exit approval rating in the post-war period. (It’s also worth noting that the Clinton administration, despite being forced to deal with a GOP-dominated House from 1994-2000, didn’t exactly play bipartisan nice-nice themselves. House Speaker Newt Gingrich effectively shut down Congress at one point because of disagreements with the White House — and Clinton came out of it A-OK. He actually makes Obama look like a bipartisanship-loving peach in comparison.)

      So really, your claim that more bipartisanship and transparency will salvage Obama’s approval ratings isn’t really historically defensible. (You could potentially argue that bipartisanship and transparency could somehow make it easier for him to turn the economy around, but those are ultimately means, not ends. The American people don’t generally care so much for process as they do for results.) It seems much more important for him, in the short-term, to figure out how to turn the economy around, regardless of whether or not the Republicans are on board.

  • McKay Coppins

    Wait a second, Steve, you shot down the quote from Commentary Magazine because it’s hard-right and neoconservative. But you didn’t say the fact in the quote was wrong. Is it?

    • Steve Pierce

      Jon’s link isn’t working, so I can’t read the article to see which Gallup poll they’re using to make that claim. Regardless, if you read Franklin’s article or just really look at the graph, it’s pretty clear that (regardless of who was lower on which date) Obama and Reagan (and to a lesser extent, Clinton) are running almost identical over their first year. The point is not if Obama has a 49.3% to Reagan’s 49.4% on January 14th or whatever. That’s irrelevant.

      The point is that presidents who are faced with a bad economy in the post-war era ALWAYS, regardless of their other actions, decline in approval until the economy turns around. Obama could be Jesus himself and his numbers would still be in the toilet if the economy was bad. This is what happens. It doesn’t matter what Commentary says or if he’s the lowest or second-lowest. All he has to do is turn the economy around in the next 2.5 years (which, considering economic cycles, shouldn’t be considered unlikely) and history shows his numbers will rebound as well.

      That was my whole point. It’s not about transparency or bipartisanship or even health care (as that won’t be a salient political issue in six months anyway and will likely be very popular once it goes into effect). It’s not about any of those things. In the words of James Carville: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

  • http://jonblogden.com Jon Ogden

    Steve,

    I have no loyalty to Commentary and can gladly get behind Charles Franklin’s argument instead of theirs, since his graph shows the Gallup poll results more clearly. (Sorry about the crappy link.)

    I can also go along with the idea that the economy is the driving force behind the presidential polls. It’s sad that the American people still haven’t realized how little power the president really has over the economy either way.

    But even if Obama’s numbers are low because of the economy, Obama promised in _The Audacity of Hope_ and throughout his campaign to do away with “politics as usual.” He hasn’t met that promise yet. I realize that it’s a big task, but that’s partly my point: he spoke bigger than he could be, and people resent that.

    It’s not that bipartisanship would bring up the poll numbers for any president, or even that bipartisanship is a panacea, but when “unity” is a central campaign promise and that promise isn’t met for whatever reason, people (read: independents) get miffed.

    I’m not saying that it’s all Obama’s fault, either. The Republicans have had more than their share of heel-digging, especially their vitriolic pundits. But if Obama wants to meet his promise that he’s rising above “politics as usual,” he should focus on breaking stridently and radically from the permanent campaign mindset Bush had. He should be taking wild risks with Fox News, even confronting them directly, repeatedly about their bogus claims, rather than blackballing them the way they blackball him. He should also be taking even wilder risks with Congress, aiming to break up the heavy Republican and Democrat split on the major issues.

    He’s done an exceptional job breaking party line expectations with Afghanistan. I hope he continues to surprise.

Categories

Archive

Pages

Bloggroll