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

Likewise, protester Wilford, a father of four, can’t be convinced to support Obama’s health care reform, which he opposes on principle—even though he cannot afford to buy health insurance for his own family, but earns too much to qualify for Medicaid, the program for low-income people. “We don’t have health care. We will pay for it on our own. We’re health conscious,” said Wilford. If he gets a large bill, “We’ll work it out with the hospital.” He has no interest in the health care reform which is supposed to help make it more affordable for people in his position to buy insurance. “It’s all a power grab. It’s disgusting,” he said.

The Pew Center has been polling on a variety of political questions over the year, and Dimock sees two major trends that both point to political divisiveness and alienation. First, Democrats and Republicans are growing further apart on fundamental questions. “There is more divisiveness on social welfare and the government safety net,” he says. “There are bigger gaps over affirmative action. There is more divisiveness on assertiveness in foreign policy, on environmental issues. Our polls suggest that Republicans have grown much more conservative in recent years.” The second trend is a growing alienation of grassroots America from Washington and the two-party system. One striking result is that more people identify as “independents” than at any time since 1992, when a strong independent candidate, Ross Perot, ran for president. “We have been tracking for a long time a growing divisiveness in American politics and a growing frustration with the federal government and the way politics is done,” Dimock says. “Maybe it was always there, but it has gotten a lot more intense in recent years,” he adds.

The growth in divisions between Republicans and Democrats does not mean, however, that Democrats are becoming more liberal—another obstacle for Obama’s agenda. On the contrary: when Pew did a major survey on Americans’ values in May, they realized it was a major misperception that Obama’s election was a vote for a bigger role for government.

In fact, fewer Democrats supported government borrowing to support a social safety net than had two years earlier. “On virtually every question on the role of government we saw the numbers keep steady or decline, especially on the social safety net, which is remarkable in a time of economic crisis,” Dimock says. “Even on regulation, in light of the failure of financial regulation, there was no huge decline in basic belief [among Democrats and Americans at large] that the free market is essential. There was no sea change in liberal direction with Obama’s election. Skepticism of government only grew with the crisis.” As a result, there has been no populist pro-government wave for Obama to ride.

Obama has so far not been as confrontational with his opponents as Bill Clinton, who gambled on a stand-off with Republicans in 1995 over a budget dispute, in which their filibustering shut down the government and hurt the GOP’s image with voters. “If Obama was more confrontational he might just say, okay, filibuster, talk yourself to death and we’ll see how the population responds to your holding up the government,” says Ribuffo. But Ribuffo also notes that Obama does not need to unite the country behind his agenda to get it done. “It’s a myth that important legislation gets passed when the country is united,” he says. “It gets passed when one group has a manageable majority and the minority is complaining. That was the case with Social Security under Roosevelt and with tax cuts under Reagan.”

In fact, several recent polls show Obama’s favourability ratings stabilizing. “The people who are put off by the nature of the health care bill formed their opinions early on and the impact has happened by now,” says Dimock. “Obama is not losing more people over health care anymore. Those people were turned away in July and August. The vast majority of Americans want to see health care reforms. Whether they are comfortable with the details is contestable, but he still does have the basic balance of public opinion on his side when he stands before Congress and says he wants something done this year.” Obama may not be able to claim he has unified the nation, but, at least for now, he doesn’t need to.

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