Voting For One Symbolic President - Shouldn't happen a Third Time

Wrongly Voting For One Symbolic President Doesn't Mean We Should Do It Again

By THOMAS SOWELL

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

The latest Gallup poll indicates that 14% of the people "moderately disapprove" of Barack Obama's performance as president and 39% "strongly disapprove."

Since Obama won two presidential elections, chances are that some of those who now "strongly disapprove" of what he has done voted to put him in office. We all make mistakes, but the real question is whether we learn from them.

With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of choosing a president of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications.

It would not matter to me if the next five presidents in a row were all women, if these happened to be the best individuals available at the time.

But to say that we should now elect "a woman" president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons.

If we were to choose just "a woman" as our next president, would that mean that any criticism of that president would be considered to be a sign of being against women?

No public official should be considered to be above criticism — and the higher up that official is, the more important it is to hold his or her feet to the fire when it comes to carrying out duties involving the life and death of individuals and the fate of the nation.

We have not yet had a Jewish president. If and when we do, does that mean that any criticism of that individual should be stigmatized and dismissed as anti-Semitism?

What of our first Italian-American president, our first Asian-American president?

Human beings of every background are imperfect creatures. When they are in a position high enough for their imperfections to bring disasters to more than 300 million Americans, the last thing we need is to stifle criticism of what they do.

It is by no means guaranteed that this country will survive the long-run consequences of the disastrous decisions already made by Barack Obama, especially his pretense of stopping Iran's becoming a nuclear power. Obama may no longer be in office when those chickens come home to roost.

If we wake up some morning and find some American city in radioactive ruins, will we connect the dots and see this as a consequence of voting to elect an unknown and untried man, for the sake of racial symbolism?

Among those who look around for someone to blame, how many will look in the mirror? Presidents already have too much insulation from criticism — and from reality.

When President Calvin Coolidge caught everyone by surprise in 1928 by announcing that he would not run for re-election, despite a prosperous economy and his own personal popularity, he simply said, "I do not choose to run."

Coolidge was a man of very few words, despite his knowledge of multiple languages. Someone once said that Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.

But, when he later wrote a small autobiography, Coolidge explained the inherent dangers in the office of president of the United States, especially when one person remains in the White House too long.

"It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness.

"They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant."

Of presidents who served eight years in office, he said, "in almost every instance" the last years of their terms show little "constructive accomplishments" and those years are often "clouded with grave disappointments."

Another president chosen for demographic representation (whether by race, sex or whatever), and further insulated from criticism and from reality, is the last thing we need.







September 2, 2014

What's Keeping President Obama's Approval Ratings From Plunging?

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY







Leadership: Despite the increasingly undeniable evidence of his failures across the board, President Obama's overall approval rating remains relatively high. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

The latest IBD/TIPP Poll finds that the public overwhelmingly gives Obama lousy grades on almost every aspect of his performance in the White House.

Just 31% give him an "A" or "B" for his handling of the economy, 29% good marks for his management of the federal budget and 32% on how he's doing on creating jobs and growth. Among independents, the numbers are 19%, 17% and 23%, respectively.

After five years of Obama's economic "growth" policies, almost half the country still thinks we're in a recession, and 52% say the economy isn't getting better.

Just 31% approve of the way Obama has handled the growing Islamic State crisis. Nearly two-thirds (63%) oppose his plans to grant unilateral amnesty to millions of illegals. And 53% oppose his signature health care law.

The previous month's IBD/TIPP Poll found that only 25% approve of the way Obama has handled the influx of minors across the Mexican border, while 56% blame his policies for encouraging the flood. Just 26% approve of his handling of the conflict in Gaza.

And yet, despite Obama's glaring ineptitude on these and other matters, the public remains unwilling to declare his a failing presidency. His approval numbers are low, to be sure, but nowhere near as low as the above numbers would suggest.

In fact, the IBD/TIPP job approval index for Obama actually rose 3.4 points this month to 43.1, and his leadership index climbed 1.8 points.

Our poll isn't the only one to find Obama's overall numbers oddly buoyant. Rasmussen has his approval rating at 46%, and only 49% disapprove of Obama's job performance in the latest Fox News poll.

And like our own survey, Gallup found the public giving Obama a much higher overall approval rating than it does for his handling of the economy and foreign affairs.

What can explain this gap?

It could be that Americans generally give presidents higher marks overall than when asked about specifics. Except that wasn't true for President George W. Bush, who saw his average approval ratings at or below 40% across the board in his second term, Gallup found.

And President Clinton's average approval rating was lower in his second term than his score for handling the economy.

It's also possible that the public is — understandably — reluctant to acknowledge that the nation's first black president is failing at the job.

But one big, important reason for Obama's approval gap is the mainstream media's seemingly inexhaustible bias in favor of him.

Immediately after Obama won the election in 2008, MSNBC's Chris Matthews promised "to do everything I can to make this ... new presidency work." Matthews meant this pledge to apply only to himself, but he might as well have been speaking on behalf of the rest of the press.

After spending eight years relentlessly attacking Bush, journalists have devoted the past six to attacking Obama's critics.

There's no doubt that, absent his media praetorian guard, Obama's ratings would be much, much lower, all down the line.