Posted on 09/17/2009 12:39:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The huge “9/12” protest in Washington was the latest expression of discontent over President Obama’s leftward policy thrust. The discord is evident from the “Tea Party” movement to the chaotic “townhalls” on “healthcare reform.”
The mainstream media and American left are thrown off by this, clearly wanting to dismiss it as a giant, petulant right-wing rant. Some “journalists,” as well as Democratic members of Congress, have described these genuinely concerned citizens in very demeaning terms, from “racists” to “Nazis.”
I know why the left is dismissive: First off, it’s difficult to know if the protesters are mostly people who didn’t vote for Obama, or, more significant, if they include Obama voters who have angrily bolted the president. But, second, there’s a deeper issue the name-callers on the left don’t understand. That’s because they don’t understand what happened on November 4, 2008.
Using data, I’d like to try to explain what took place.
Here’s the rub: On November 4, 2008, a largely conservative American electorate elected an extremely liberal American president. And now that that president is governing from the extreme left, a sizable portion of that electorate is in revolt. It’s that simple.
Let’s start from the beginning:
As a senator, Barack Obama was ranked the most liberal member of arguably the most liberal Senate in the nation’s history by the respected, non-partisan National Journal—famous for its rankings. Americans had never elected as president anyone from that position. Yet, that’s precisely what they did last November 4, and by an impressive margin.
Like many observers, including my liberal friends, I assumed America voted that way because the nation shifted to the left. That was my immediate feeling.
Of course, feelings shouldn’t drive conclusions. So, I went to the data, to the numerous exit polls widely available. There, I expected a reversal in the longtime pattern—beginning under Reagan in the 1980s—where Americans call themselves “conservative” rather than “liberal” by roughly two-to-one, or by around 40 percent compared to 20 percent.
Those numbers must have finally flipped in 2008—or at least narrowed dramatically? No. Despite voting for the most leftist president in the history of the republic, the electorate continued to identify itself as conservative over liberal by roughly two-to-one, around 40 percent to 20 percent.
Maybe this magically turned in Obama’s favor upon his inauguration? No.
One of my favorite examples was noted in a column I wrote during Obama’s first 100 days, titled, “An Obama-Reagan Presidency?” I cited a survey by Clarus Research Group that asked Americans which president should be the model for Barack Obama in shaping his presidency. Surely, the public picked a liberal, right? FDR or LBJ?
No. The electorate’s top choice was America’s most conservative president: Ronald Reagan.
Is that even remotely logical? No, it isn’t.
Finally, one more example, which hit last summer: A Gallup poll reported that conservatives outnumber liberals in literally every state.
Again, that isn’t a surprise, but the specifics of the poll are worth detailing:
It was conducted January through May, when “Obama-mania” was at its peak. Gallup surveyed 160,000 people, far and away a big enough sample for an accurate representation. It found 40 percent calling themselves conservative and 21 percent opting for liberal, largely unchanged from Gallup findings over the last two decades, including the 2004 presidential race (40 percent to 19 percent) and 2000 race (38 percent to 19 percent).
Gallup reaffirmed that conservatives are the single largest voting bloc in America. There are decidedly more conservatives among both women (37 percent to 23 percent) and men (44 percent to 20 percent).
The shock is that such an electorate would choose a president so far to the left.
What the country elected, however, was an appealing politician campaigning under a nebulous, catch-all-be-all banner of “change.” Americans didn’t cast ballots in favor of Barack Obama’s sweeping left-wing ideological preferences—which they knew little about, in part thanks to the same liberal media now fuming at the protesters. They voted for personality; they elected Obama, not his politics. Obama didn’t get a “progressive” mandate.
This is a conservative country. It will not be easily governed by a president governing from the big-government, collectivist left. Obama is doing that, and thus the backlash. We’re watching the inevitable clash between a schizophrenic, irrational electorate and a principled, leftist president.
Yes, conservatives lost on November 4, 2008, but it wasn’t conservatism that was rejected. Likewise, it wasn’t progressivism/liberalism/socialism that was approved.
Blame it on the general public? Yes, certainly.
Barack Obama shouldn’t have expected this electorate to choose him president any more than Eugene Debs or Norman Thomas once did.
In sum, liberals need to understand this reality. Their guy got a major victory on November 4, but not a left-wing mandate.
The only remaining questions are to what degree Obama continues the push to the left, and precisely how much of the electorate is against him.
-- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”
I think he’s got it right.
Till the republicans take charge again, then America becomes liberal again.
Try “American is a ‘what’s in it for me’ country”
The other point that the author of this piece should have made is that 0bama pretty well bought the Presidency. He outspent McCain by what, three to one?
I never put too much stock in the power of propaganda/advertising, but 0bama getting elected sure changed my mind!
What would the election have been like had there been no ACORN, no Black Panther thugs, etc.?
makes pretty good sense to me......
He says that self-identified "conservatives" outnumber self-identified "liberals" 40%-20%. But that leaves another 40% who do not so self-identify. And I think that the reason for the election of Obama lies there.That, and conservative vote suppression by John McCain . . .
Agreed,
RE :”The other point that the author of this piece should have made is that 0bama pretty well bought the Presidency. He outspent McCain by what, three to one?’
Yes but Honest John McCain followed the spirit of Campaign reform and took public funding. That got him many votes too, LOL .... jerk!
The article is accurate, it was anti- republican not pro-liberal , and much of 1994 vote was NOT pro-cut social spending as we hoped. The best election wins come from the other side having power.
Worth repeating--but we must not simply accept that it was due to the fact that it was primarily a result of the "liberal media." Even now, folks like many at Fox continue to claim that he campaigned as a centrist or moderate, giving cover to the claim that American citizens bought something other than what they are getting.
No, he campaigned as who he was--a part-term Senator whose voting record was the most liberal of any of the Senators, who appeared over and over at meetings of Far Left groups and stated the reasons why their members should vote for him.
Yes, he made, and continues to make, statements using the semantics and "words" of conservatives, but anyone other than the most gullible citizen must be held responsible for projecting upon him whatever their own views were. He certainly had no history or documentation for being anything but a person whose redistributionist ideas would dominate his presidency.
Fox's "fair and balanced" crew do a disservice when they misrepresent what happened, for it may tend to perpetuate the notion that voters are mere innocents who have no obligation to dig behind a candidate's words before they hand over the power that goes with political office at the highest level. Facts and records are powerful things. If ABC, CBS, NBC and the other now "fringe" media don't see fit to warn the citizenry of dangers to their liberty, then the media that is truly "mainstream" must step up to the plate and do a better job of alerting citizens to the contrast between the politician's words and all previous actions.
The Founders said "an enlightened and informed" citizenry would be required to protect liberty. Two hundred years is a long time, but their words remain legitimate guides today.
How do you explain all the people who are now against Obama’s policy. Do you believe these people would have still voted for him had “The Media” vetted him like they should have. I know friends that would not have voted for him if they knew he smoked! ...and thats just one small issue.
“America Remains a Conservative Country”
The people do, but not the government. Therein lies a big problem.
From what he says, it sounds as if many (too many?) people don’t pay much attention to politics, and when November Presidential election comes around after four years of not thinking about politics, maybe they think they can have a Liberal President believing like Ronald Reagan.
It’s absurd, but maybe true.
And I think that the reason for the election of Obama lies there.
You're exactly right.
Two major factors elected Obama.
1. Most of the squishy moderate middle bought his "Hope & Change" baloney, and
2. Many conservatives stayed home, even with the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket.
This same squishy middle are the ones most acutely afflicted with buyer's remorse right now. They're also the ones who will guarantee a return to sanity in the upcoming mid-term elections and the 2012 presidential election.
“The people maybe conservative, but they don’t pay attention and are very easily lulled into believing a politician who tells them what they want to hear ( hiding his true agenda ).
Thus, they vote for someone who does not share their ideology and then later suffer buyer’s (really, voter’s ) remorse.
But by then, the damage is done.”
That’s right.
It's just as I said at the time - you can run as "not-Bush" but you can't govern as "not-Bush." It isn't a position, it's a reflection.
As Rush says, Americans live right and vote left - this last time they voted more left than usual never dreaming the one would be as extreme as he’s been.
Here’s a good rule of thumb: disenchantment with the GOP is not the same thing as a shift to the left. Especially when the last guy in the White House was named Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.