How Obama divided America

The President’s aggressive policy agenda has reignited partisan politics

by Luiza Ch. Savage on Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:00am - 38 Comments

How Obama divided AmericaIt was the largest protest march, so far, of Obama’s presidency. They came from around the country on Sept. 12, tens of thousands of people filling Pennsylvania Avenue en route to the White House, where only months earlier an ecstatic crowd had celebrated the election of the first black president of the United States and the end of the Bush era.

Now they came in anger, with signs declaring “Tax Slave Revolt” and “Stop Spending our Grandkids’ Futures,” and chanting “No Obamacare.” One sign read, “National health care doesn’t work. Just ask Canada.” Some aimed personally at the President. “Let’s see your records! Let’s see your birth certificate!” shouted one man into a megaphone. Others chanted simply, “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

Unlike the young and racially mixed crowds that poured out for the inauguration, this crowd was overwhelmingly white, and mostly older. These were the people Obama was supposed to reach, to soothe, to win over with his “post-partisan” politics and his stirring campaign slogan of uniting “Red and Blue America into a United States of America.” Instead, Red America was not greeting him with flowers. “We came unarmed—this time!” read one placard. During the hard-fought Democratic primary contest against Hillary Rodham Clinton, part of Obama’s argument was that he was going to move past rigid divides between the political left and right, that he offered a generational turning of the page on the ideological battles of the 1960s that had moulded Clinton’s generation. But now this promise seems to ring as hollow as candidate George W. Bush’s pledge in the 2000 campaign to be “a uniter, not a divider.”

Over the summer, town halls discussing Obama’s health care reform turned into shouting matches, with some attendees showing up with weapons. When the President prepared a motivational back-to-school speech to schoolchildren, some parents pulled their kids from class to escape what they feared would be liberal brainwashing. (A prepared lesson plan would have asked kids what they can do to “help the President.” It was scrapped.) When he stood up to give a speech to a joint session of Congress about health care reform, a Republican from South Carolina took the unprecedented step of shouting, “You lie!” Congressional Democrats censured him, but some in the Washington protest crowd carried signs that read, “Joe Wilson is my hero.” Former president Jimmy Carter concluded that the backlash had to do with Obama’s race. “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” Carter said on Sept. 15. When comedian David Letterman asked Obama if he agreed with Carter, Obama joked, “I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.” A White House spokesman portrayed the turmoil as merely a policy “disagreement.”

It is more than that.

Since March, a yawning gap in approval ratings for Obama has opened up between Republicans and Democrats—even bigger than George W. Bush’s. It has led critics to call him not only a polarizing figure, but the most polarizing president in history. Obama’s election win was respectable, but close: 53 per cent of the vote, compared to John McCain’s 46. Still, he entered office on a wave of popularity. His approval ratings were a much stronger 64 per cent prior to his inauguration in January, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press; some polls had him in the 70s. Now he has dropped to 52 per cent approval, with only 18 per cent of Republicans approving of him, a drop from 30 per cent in April. Obama’s partisan gap is bigger than Bush’s because more Democrats still back him—82 per cent, down from 92 per cent in the spring. “When a president’s job approval is higher than the vote in the election, that suggests there are people who voted against him giving him the benefit of the doubt,” says Michael Dimock, a pollster at Pew, which does extensive presidential polling. “He started from a very high point in February and March, but his approval ratings have fallen substantially.”

Indeed. The proverbial honeymoon ended quickly: the seeds of division were planted with the massive US$787-billion economic stimulus bill—which drew plenty of criticism and not a single vote from Republicans in the House (and only three GOP votes in the Senate) when it passed in February—and the ballooning deficit. A Pew poll this month found that 61 per cent of Republicans consider Obama “not trustworthy,” up from 35 per cent in February. The President has also lost support among moderate and conservative Democrats. And his support among independents is down too.

The story of Obama’s current decline can be boiled down to three parts. One involves an underlying cultural shift in America, one is Obama’s aggressive policy agenda and some missteps in how he is implementing it, and the third is the largely overlooked role of George W. Bush.

There is a significant amount of personal animosity to Obama—some 10 per cent of Americans falsely believe he was born in Kenya, not in the U.S., and is not legally entitled to be president. But the loud conservative backlash brewing in the country is bigger than Obama, and started in the waning days of the Bush administration. There had long been a drumbeat of criticism on the right over the “un-conservative” things Bush did: from his plans for amnesty for illegal aliens to his massive deficits, and passing the largest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the 1960s—a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors—without finding the money for it. But a watershed moment came in September 2008 when the financial crisis began to unfold and the Bush administration swiftly moved in. There was the US$700-billion Wall Street bailout (followed by revelations that top executives still received lucrative bonuses while taxpayers footed the bill for the survival of their companies), and then Washington’s expansion into a dizzying number of companies. The government now accounts for 26 per cent of the American economy, the most since the Second World War. It owns the lion’s share of insurer AIG, has a majority stake in General Motors, and finances most consumer credit card and mortgage lending in the country.

The Obama administration insists the measures are temporary, but a large number of Americans are bewildered at the massive, rapid changes they have witnessed. Many of the protesters who came to Washington on Sept. 12 carried signs denouncing Obama or Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, but just as many were raising their voice against “big government” and the debt being left to their children and grandchildren. They were mostly Republicans, but they were not shy about denouncing Bush or congressional GOPers either. “When Bush said we need to abandon free market principles to save the free market, that’s when I almost went blind!” said Jim Wilford, a 33-year-old Republican entrepreneur from Mays Landing, N.J., who carried a sign comparing members of Congress to space aliens. What brought him into the streets? “Everything,” he said, “The whole government is jacked up—Republicans and Democrats. The common people have to make their voices heard.” He listed as his concerns out-of-control government spending, health care reform, the auto bailout, and “the socialistic and Marxist ideologies invading the consciousness of the government.”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Harbles Harbles

    Why is it Obama's fault?

    What responsibility do Fox-news, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the entire republican caucus and the supposedly more respectable MSM for generating and not effectively pointing out the crazy?

    • common sense

      ACORN. ACORN is responsible for the housing collapse and played a huge role in the economic collapse of America and the world. Obama was a community orginizor for ACORN – he also defended ACORN in several law suits. Obama also gave ACORN $800,000 for sound and lighting equipment.

      • 54654

        Wow, $800,000?! Do you realize how little $800,000 is when discussing policital matters? That is absolute pocket change when we are dealing with millions and trillions of dollars being transferred from one political group to another. You are gravely misinformed! How could one small organization like ACORN be responsible for a HUGE role in the economic collaps and the entire housing collapse? You should utilize your ''common sense'' and not use ACORN as a scapegoat….

      • bwest

        "ACORN is responsible for the housing collapse" – Really? this is what you actually believe? Where do you people come from? These titles "Marxist, socialist, Kenyan, Muslim, etc" its so depressing that this passes for debate in America. So depressing.

    • mike

      because he actually is a socialist, whereas Bush just went native after too may years in Washington.

  • Partisan nonpartisan

    Apparently, it's "common sense" to just plain MAKE UP things like that "Obama was a community orginizor (sic) for ACORN".

    For me, I think it makes the writer look unreasonable and makes me very unlikely to put any value in anything they say!

    • Big D

      Well said.

  • http://www.claysamerica.com Clay Barham

    Obama told us, when he ran, that he would change America and that community interests are more important than are individual interests. Isn't that a prescription for socialism? There is a new book out describing the change from libertarian policies to Rousseau and Marx idea in the CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS at Amazon.com or noted on the site, http://www.claysamerica.com. America was the only nation in the world built around the importance of individual freedom, something long detested by the left…the rest of the world.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AdenMurphy AdenMurphy

    The story behind this article is less the divisiveness of Obama than the decoupling of right-wing rhetoric from reality. The fact that one in 10 Americans believe that their president was born in Kenya, and that a far higher proportion feel that he is a Marxist/Communist/Socialist indicates that the splintering and tribalisation of political discourse in the States is having very real and very negative policy implications.
    We can quibble over how Obama could have better handled both the stimulus package and healthcare debate, but the fact of the matter is that the Republican Party and many independent libertarian voters are simply angry with everything political in Washington without knowledge or understanding of the issues. Mass political illiteracy and FOX News have poisoned American politics, to the point where it's becoming one of the biggest obstacles to the country's progress and prosperity.
    But it certainly makes me feel better about Canada.

  • http://www.lexxassafaris.com Lexxas Safaris

    In 50 years we will have muslim law and this will not be a big deal. It will be legal. Diversity is the answer to all of our problems. Liberals and political correctness coupled with acorn is the enemy of the truth.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I enjoyed this article. I'd say the author neglected one major piece of the puzzle though: the Democrat reaction to the protests.

    When people originally began showing up in huge numbers at townhall meetings and "Tea Party" protests, the Democrats (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) suggested that it was "astroturf", or that the protesters were either paid or bused in to feign grassroots outrage. This did not go over well with thousands of Americans who were attending with genuine concerns and observing that most of the people in the room were their friends and neighbors. Open admissions by Congressmen that they were voting on the Bill without having bothered to read it didn't help either.

    Matters were worsened when major media organizations like CNN and MSNBC took it upon themselves to label the protesters "Teabaggers", a fairly disgusting sexual slur.

    The Democrats and their media allies finally completely stepped in it when they played the race card. Accusing the protesters of being motivated by bigotry rather than policy concerns, a transparent ploy to bully people into shutting up, led to sincere anger not just at the policies being enacted but the bullies trying to enact them.

    The US is now more polarized than any time since the Civil War. It began with controversial policies, but the real damage is due to the Democrats' vilification of honestly concerned citizens. I can't understand how this article missed this dominant consideration.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I enjoyed this article. I'd say the author neglected one major piece of the puzzle though: the Democrat reaction to the protests.

    When people originally began showing up in huge numbers at townhall meetings and "Tea Party" protests, the Democrats (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) suggested that it was "astroturf", or that the protesters were either paid or bused in to feign grassroots outrage. This did not go over well with thousands of Americans who were attending with genuine concerns and observing that most of the people in the room were their friends and neighbors. Open admissions by Congressmen that they were voting on the Bill without having bothered to read it didn't help either.

    Matters were worsened when major media organizations like CNN and MSNBC took it upon themselves to label the protesters "Teabaggers", a fairly disgusting sexual slur.

    The Democrats and their media allies finally completely stepped in it when they played the race card. Accusing the protesters of being motivated by bigotry rather than policy concerns, a transparent ploy to bully people into shutting up, led to sincere anger not just at the policies being enacted but the bullies trying to enact them.

    The US is now more polarized than at any time since the Civil War. It began with controversial policies, but the real damage is due to the Democrats' vilification of honestly concerned citizens. I can't understand how this article missed this dominant consideration.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I enjoyed this article. I'd say the author neglected one major piece of the puzzle though: the Democrat reaction to the protests.

    When people originally began showing up in huge numbers at townhall meetings and "Tea Party" protests, the Democrats (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) suggested that it was "astroturf", or that the protesters were either paid or bused in to feign grassroots outrage. This did not go over well with thousands of Americans who were attending with genuine concerns and observing that most of the people in the room were their friends and neighbors. Open admissions by Congressmen that they were voting on the Bill without having bothered to read it didn't help either.

    Matters were worsened when major media organizations like CNN and MSNBC took it upon themselves to label the protesters "Teabaggers", a fairly disgusting sexual slur.

    The Democrats and their media allies finally completely stepped in it when they played the race card. Accusing the protesters of being motivated by bigotry rather than policy concerns, a transparent ploy to bully people into shutting up, led to sincere anger not just at the policies being enacted but the bullies trying to enact them.

    The US is now more polarized than at any time since the Civil War. It began with controversial policies, but the real damage is due to the Democrats' vilification of honestly concerned citizens. I can't understand how this article missed such a dominant consideration.

  • JimD

    Meet the new boss…..same as the old boss. At least Ron Pauls bill to audit the Federal Reserve passed, so there may actually be a concrete result of these protests and the general dissatisfaction with government.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

    Will it be shock and awe everyone feels that voted for him.

  • Jesse

    Congratulations to that Wilford fellow. If only Canadians aspired to self-reliance…

  • scf

    Great article. Don't know why Savage does not have a blog, she seems to have some good insights.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I enjoyed this article but the author neglected a major consideration: the Democrat reaction to the protests.

    When people originally began showing up in huge numbers at townhall meetings and "Tea Party" protests, the Democrats (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) suggested that it was "astroturf", or that the protesters were either paid or bused in to feign grassroots outrage. This did not go over well with thousands of Americans who were attending with genuine concerns and observing that most of the people in the room were their friends and neighbors. Open admissions by Congressmen that they were voting on the Bill without having bothered to read it didn't help either.

    Matters worsened when major media organizations like CNN and MSNBC took it upon themselves to label the protesters "Teabaggers", a fairly disgusting sexual slur.

    The Democrats and their media allies finally completely stepped in it when they played the race card. Accusing the protesters of being motivated by bigotry rather than policy concerns, a transparent ploy to bully people into shutting up, led to sincere anger not just at the policies being enacted but the bullies trying to enact them.

    The US is now more polarized than at any time since the Civil War. It began with controversial policies, but the real damage is due to the Democrats' vilification of honestly concerned citizens. I can't understand how this article missed (other than a brief mention of Carter's accusations) such a dominant consideration.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

    As I recall, the alternative was McCain/Palin.

  • Brian

    I love it. Eight years of brutal partisanship, inflamed on both sides by near-psychotic rhetoric, and now it's Obama's fault it hasn't gone away in a flash.

    I sure wish those Belgians hadn't started the First World War, too.

  • Nick

    Boy this magazine has become a copy rag for the right wing of the US. Note that there is little mention of the Republicans in this story. Democrats were blamed for some of the controversy in Iraq but the Republicans are presumed innocent when it comes to divisions in the country. They have chosen to assume they did not lose the election.

    It is also important to note that some of the decline in Obamas popularity is from the Left. Many progressives, who came out hugely for Obama in the election, are disenchanted with his healthcare reform. They would prefer single payer or a public option ( a recent CBS poll shows 62% favour a public option). My guess is less than 1% of those tea protesters supported Obama in the election.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

      Parisella's blog is around the corner. I think you'll be right at home there.

  • Ryan

    The fact that the left tries to make it seem like it's a race issue as a method to get their agenda done. It's as if the left is incapable of believing people can actually have different beliefs than them. That's what's most sickening: the way the left so blindly believes it knows what's best for everyone.

    I used to be firmly planted on the left myself but when I finally grew up, I was able to look back on my ideals from those days, and while I see where they came from (yes, good intentions, of course), I can see just how misplaced those ideals were (and still are).

  • Ryan

    I simply became tired of other people thinking they know better than myself how to run my life and as such, I've come to distrust more government. This is the fundamental difference between the Democrat and Republican supporters: Democrat supporters are okay with less government, but Republican supporters view any loss of freedom as an infringement on freedom… because well, it is an infringement on their freedom!

    Basically, the principles of the right must always be defended because it becomes twice as hard to gain back lost freedoms than it is to fight losing those freedoms in the first place.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis
    • Michael

      Rolling Stone is not an unbiased source.National Inquirer would have been better to use.

  • Brian

    Ryan wrote: "Democrat supporters are okay with less [I assume you mean more] government, but Republican supporters view any loss of freedom as an infringement on freedom… because well, it is an infringement on their freedom! "

    Except, apparently, the Patriot Act, a massive increase in unfunded public spending on the credit of every American taxpayer, and sustained efforts to impose a religious agenda on every American using the state as their vehicle.

    But otherwise, I guess your partisan generalization is correct. :-)

    • Ryan

      No no, I did mean that Democrats are okay with less government, at least if you compare it to how "okay with it" Republicans are with more government.

      Yes though, are plenty of things the previous administration did that really were liberal but done under the guise of conservative. The ideals and the actions certainly strayed a bit too far from each other. It's not defensible to have spent as they've spunt (yes, a new word, just now created by myself; don't hate), but it doesn't mean it's okay then for liberals to then spend even more.

  • Frans Hoogeveen

    If you americans think the health care system in Canada doesn't work ask a Canadian if he would ever give it up. I'll wager over 90% would not.
    Yes there are problems but who and what system doesn't. Its man made that makes it imperfect. My mother at 92 was told yesterday by a specialist he wanted to know why her memory was up and down. yesterday afternoon he had a catscan done. No question about who will pay or anything. We still live in the better country haha.

  • http://www.profenceworks.com Fence Manager

    It continues to bewilder me on the meaning the word "socialism" has taken in the United States. Our army is one of the biggest socialist organization in the world, if by socialism you mean something that everyone pays for by the force of the government and which may or may not effect some or most of the population. Socialism can also mean 'community', in the sense that an organization of people that forms to help each other in need, and needs all of it's members to adhere to it's values to succeed. But what the neocons have you believe is that socialism is the 'big evil' government that puts the head of free market in a guillotine and shows no mercy. Matter of fact is that in some of the most advanced countries with the highest human development index are socialist (sweden, norway, etc.). I believe it is time to open up a dictionary, and even embrace some socialism, because it will only be a self-embrace, and not of foreign values.

  • Boogard

    "The story of Obama’s current decline can be boiled down to three parts. One involves an underlying cultural shift in America, one is Obama’s aggressive policy agenda and some missteps in how he is implementing it, and the third is the largely overlooked role of George W. Bush."

    You forgot the Skip Gates affair. His numbers tanked among whites immediately thereafter and haven't recovered and never will recover.

    You neglected to mention that only a month or so ago Obama explicitly called for a coalition of blacks, hispanics, and women to support Democrats in the upcoming election. That is possibly the most divisive thing any American president has ever said or done and your analysis suffers immensely due to this glaring omission. He's openly calling for a race and gender war by proxy.

  • Michael

    Obama was exposed as a far left leaning candidate during the primaries and also the election ,but the mainstream media and people in general chose to believe he was a centrist and was a candidate that would " change" the corruptness of Washington.What's amazing is in the few short months of his Presidency his economic stimulus plan went primarily to his supporters and groups like the corrupt ACORN even giving 2.5Million to promote Democracy and Human rights in Libya.
    Apologizing to mid east human rights violators for America while turning his back on Israel and bringing it all home with his appeasement of Iran.
    I wish him the best of luck in the future in these challenging times but for now he's looking like a Community Organizer and chief not the President.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vujan Vujan

    Obama's policies have nothing to do with the divide being created in the US. Since Reagan took office, the right (religion and wealth) has controlled Washington, and are not about to give up that power quietly. For a generation, the US has been living a "me first" lifestyle for HealthCare, Investments, Consumption, and others. Now they see the demographics and power base moving towards the Democrats long term and are scared. That is why the Becks and Palins are out in full-force try to slow this movement towards a fairer democracy for the middle and lower income. Obama has 100s of fires to put out after 20+ years of republican waste, spending, tax cuts, foreign policy, lobbyists, deregulation, man could I go on. It's not being aggressive or assertive, it's getting down to business.

  • Dakota

    If you're white you had better not write anything critical of Obama or the lib-left politically correct crowd will accuse you of being a racist.

    Welcome to the lunacy of the left!

  • Beam Me Up Scotty

    It is naive to the extreme to state his health policies are not socialist. The only reason he has backed off to a less far-left stance is he knows he doesn't have the votes to pass it. He certainly would if he could. Also this guy a uniter? What a laugh. He is dishonest beyond belief. Anyone watch the TV show detailng his involvement with every corrupt politician in Chicago. Even their bid for the Olympics is being done to enrich his buddies, one of whom is recognized as in the top ten of the most corrupt politicians in the States. This guy is a community organizer–big deal–kinda like being a school trustee in Canuckistan. Hardly qualifies you for the job he's got.

  • DMM

    Your facile characterization of the principles of "self-reliance and personal choice with responsibility " as "me first" is one of the reasons that there is such a large divide. It's an offensive and intellectually lazy way to portray a sizeable group of people with a different viewpoint on the role of government.

From Macleans