Posted on Tue, Jan. 13, 2009

e-mail	print	RSS	reprint
AIM	Digg it	del.icio.us	Facebook

Declining polls are part of presidency

So it begins, the slow but certain leaching away of our approval of Barack Obama's un-started presidency. (Down 4 percentage points since Election Day.)

The Gallup Poll began tracking how we rate our presidents' stewardship in the late 1930s, and no one except Franklin Delano Roosevelt has left office with higher approval ratings than he had at the beginning. Two of the dozen -- Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton -- have been close to breaking even, but the other nine departed in lower public regard.

It would be nice for the feelings of future ex-presidents, of course, if that changed. And nice for us, too, because it would mean that things had gone consistently if improbably well for four or eight years; that the president had handled big and little crises in ways we approved; and maybe that, as consumers of governance and respondents to polls, we had learned to appreciate the perils and dynamics of decision making.

It would be nice, but it won't happen; it's mostly downhill from here, Mr. President-elect, but don't take it personally.

The declines are easily explained by human nature. Presidents come into office either because the nation chose them or, as in three Gallup-era cases, unexpected and tragic circumstances thrust the job upon them.

If we elected them, it's only natural that we believe we did the right thing, so when pollsters ask at the beginning of the term if we approve of the way our choice is running things, a majority of us are going to reinforce our ballots by saying "yes."

If the change came about through the shock of sudden death or resignation, we're naturally inclined to rally round the successor at first -- a phenomenon demonstrated by the fact that three of the highest beginning approval ratings were for Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford, each elevated to the presidency by sudden trauma.

Then the heavy presidential lifting starts. Tough decisions have to be made. Campaign promises are broken or compromised because of changed circumstances or a lack of public support. Some personal warts, previously daubed with campaign makeup, begin to show.

The leakage of approval begins. Survey snapshots show monthly fluctuations -- some up, some down, as dictated by events -- but the overall chart for most presidents drifts downward.

It continues until the president fails re-election or comes to the end of his second term. Then we see the redemptive power of lame-duckism. Approval surveys of outgoing incumbents almost always show a small uptick during the brief period between Election Day and the inauguration of the successor. This was true even of the much-maligned Jimmy Carter. The only exception so far was Richard Nixon, though the final count isn't in yet for George W. Bush.

Given the steady drift downward during the four or eight years, our brief, closing spurt of approval may be the same human impulse that occurs when an overstaying house guest finally leaves: relief and perhaps a little guilt that we were so eager for him to go. And maybe a bit of sympathy.

The question arises whether any of that matters. We don't want presidents spending much time worrying about their approval ratings, but they, like us, are only human. Neither of us should take it too seriously.

Davis Merritt is a former editor of The Eagle. Reach him at dmerritt9@cox.net.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.CommentBody@

@Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@