Quadrennial Mush from the Post

Political Divisions Persist After Election
Nation Unsure, Hopeful About Bush, Poll Finds

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 18, 2005; Page A01

What do you do if you’re an editor of a major newspaper that has covered so many presidential inaugurations you’re out of story ideas?  Just take a quadrennial headline off the shelf and dust it off or a new century. I believe the Post first ran the “Nation Unsure, Hopeful” line during the Lincoln Administration.  Can someone with Nexis please look that one up?

President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership on the issues that will dominate his agenda, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Fasten your seatbelts, this is going to be a bumpy ride.  A news story should lead with an expository sentence, if not the classic “who, what, when, where and why.”  Or, is it better to just load up the first graf with a whole bunch of clichés?  Frankly, I’m dubious…

On the eve of Thursday's presidential inaugural ceremonies, the survey found few signs that the country has begun to come together since Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) two months ago.

What kind of signs are they looking for?  Mass defections of Democrats, Armstrong Williams being elected mayor of Washington, DC?

The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country.

You mean the people who voted for Bush want him to lead, and the people who didn’t don’t?  I am so glad I read the newspaper today, I might have missed this stunning new idea.

Fewer than half of those interviewed -- 45 percent -- said they preferred that the country go in the direction that Bush wanted to lead it, whereas 39 percent said Democrats should lead the way. During the first months of his presidency, after the bitterly disputed 2000 election, Americans said they preferred Bush to take the lead by 46 percent to 36 percent.

See above.  Also note the inference that the country is split along similar lines as it was four years ago.  Again, this is news?

But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats. At a time when Democratic leaders are preparing to challenge many of Bush's major initiatives, nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him -- even if it means compromising on their party's principles. Only one in four said Democrats must not compromise on things they find objectionable, even if it means less gets accomplished.

A word here about partisanship.  Despite what you may have heard, there isn’t a partisan clash in this country, it’s more of a partisan vacuum. Veteran Washington reporter David Broder, wrote in the 70s that “the party’s over.”  For thirty years, the  debate has raged   over whether Broder was right then or is right now.  Like the major TV networks, the political parties often seem like dinosaurs on the brink of extinction. Compromise used to be a dirty word – even “moderation” was “no virtue” to Barry Goldwater.  Now, as partisan edges blur, the sharpness of our differences get smoothed over.  But they’re still there.

Now, take a look at the actual question (#7) the Post used to measure the popularity of “compromise.”  It’s so long it requires special tailoring.  By the time the pollster is finished reading this question, the voter is either asleep or desperate to move on.  Next time you see a 27 question survey like this, try reading it aloud.  See how long it takes before you'll answer yes to anything.

Looking ahead, a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- said they expect Bush to do a better job as president in the next four years than he did during his first term. That is about equal to the proportion in January 1997 that expected President Bill Clinton's second term to be better than his first.

In case you didn’t get it the first two times, here’s the point of this story again:  same old same old.

On Social Security, the poll offered mixed findings that underscore the enormous challenge facing Bush at the start of what both parties see as the most significant legislative battle of the second term.

For every instance where a reporter uses words like “enormous challenge” or “uphill fight” read “hopeless cause.”

Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue, and three in five said the system will not have enough money to pay benefits by the time they retire.

Republicans don’t get how important Social Security is because it’s not all that important to them.  How many people does George Bush know who are living on Social Security?  Most taxpayers are worried about the future, and making Social Security less secure doesn’t appeal to them.

But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration.

Lesson #2 in how to read between the lines of polls:  how you phrase the question will influence the results.  This why Democrats like to attack Republicans for “cuts” that Republicans prefer to call “savings.”  Remember that old Saturday Night Live sketch where Chevy Chase played a PR flack at Three Mile Island?  Instead of calling the near meltdown an “accident,” his character urged, let’s call it a “surprise.”

Other polls have shown sizable opposition when the Bush plan is described as cutting future benefits, and the varying results among surveys suggest that the communications battle to frame the problem and the solutions may prove crucial to the outcome, as was the case in the fight over Clinton's health care plan in 1993 and 1994 and the battle to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending, which cost Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994.

In case you were falling asleep amid all these numbers, and I know I was, here’s some references to earlier dramas to keep things lively. “Where’s the conflict,” editors and Hollywood producers like to ask. If this story could have mentioned Monica Lewinsky, you know it would have.

But Iraq and terrorism, more than Social Security, are the issues the public wants Bush to concentrate on in his second term. The poll found that Americans rank Iraq and the war on terrorism as the top priorities for Bush and Congress. More than six in 10 Americans rate the situation in Iraq as the highest priority for Bush and Congress in the coming year, and more than half say the war on terrorism also must be a top priority.

Yes, we know. Americans are worried about terrorism.  Some would say that the Bush team has capitalized on these fears –actually as this hilarious video from the Republican Convention shows, they were pretty blatant about it.

No other issue, including the economy, education, health care and Social Security, is viewed by a majority of the public as equally pressing.

Hey Bush, are you listening?  The Washington Post says you shouldn’t count on winning your Social Security plan.

Bush said in an interview last week with The Washington Post that the 2004 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he has made in Iraq, but the poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation to 40 percent who approve, and 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.

Subtext alert!  Danger!  Warning! 
Have you noticed how often the press has referred to Bush’s “accountability moment” phrase?  I’m as liberal as the next guy, if not more so, but even I can recognize it when the media puts its fingers in its ears, blows a raspberry and taunts “Dummy Dummy!”

The survey also found that, although Americans overwhelmingly oppose delaying the upcoming elections in Iraq, scheduled for Jan. 30, they are pessimistic that the vote will produce a stable government. Nearly six in 10 said it will not bring a stable government, but 57 percent said they see the elections as a step to the day that U.S. troops can be withdrawn from the country.

Here’s a statistic I just made up but let’s consider it as read:  the more you poll, the more pessimistic people become. 

The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent, up slightly in the past month. Of all presidents in the postwar era who won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating at the start of his second term. The other chief executives began their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher.

Again, I don’t hold much to this notion of a liberal bias in the media, but this is just more of the Post saying, let’s take this Bush guy down a peg.

A majority of Americans express disapproval of Bush on other key measures of presidential performance. A slight majority -- 52 percent -- disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy, and half or more also are dissatisfied with the way Bush has dealt with the budget deficit (58 percent disapprove), immigration (54 percent) and health care (51 percent).

Ibid op cit and Bob’s your uncle. Post to Bush:  No Mandate, Buster

Bush gets higher marks on the key issue of terrorism, where a 61 percent majority approve of the job he is doing, up eight points in the past month. And 56 percent expressed satisfaction with his education policies. The public is divided on the president's handling of environmental issues, foreign affairs and taxes.

Al Sharpton got it right when he asked during one of the presidential debates:  “What’s Bush’s platform? Be thankful you’re alive?” As long as airplanes aren’t flying into buildings today, Bush gets the benefit of the doubt.

Expectations are high for Bush as he begins his second term. Seven in 10 say they expect him to make major progress against terrorism. Smaller majorities also expect the president to move forward on the economy, Iraq, education, limiting medical and class-action lawsuits, and taxes.

But on other issues, the public is more pessimistic. Slightly fewer than half said they expect Bush to make substantial progress on Social Security (46 percent) and health care (48 percent). And even fewer expect major successes by Bush on such issues as the environment (32 percent), the deficit (35 percent) and immigration (39 percent).

OK, that’s it. Game over.  This article is really about pessimism, I’m afraid to say.  Post to Us:  We’re pessimists.

The complex political challenges facing Bush and congressional Democrats can be seen in public attitudes on two issues that are emerging as the cornerstones of Bush's domestic agenda: Social Security and limiting medical malpractice and class-action lawsuits.

I thought you said Social Security wasn’t all that important?

Overall, the public expresses more confidence in Democrats in Congress (50 percent) than in the Bush administration (37 percent) to deal with problems in the Social Security system. But another picture emerges when the public is asked to evaluate specific reform proposals under consideration by the Bush administration.

Americans divide equally over Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits for future retirees to increases in the cost of living rather than to wage growth as is now the case, a change that would effectively mean benefits would be lower than currently projected. A clear majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- support the president's proposal to allow younger workers to put some of their Social Security savings into stocks or bonds. When packaged together, the two components draw the support of 54 percent of those surveyed.

I’ve resisted this quote until now, but it’s time to bring out that old chestnut often attributed to Mark Twain –There are lies, damn lies and statistics. When it gets down to a vote in Congress, see how popular lowering benefits will be.

The survey suggests that Democratic leaders may be out of step with their rank and file on the severity of the problems facing Social Security. Those leaders are attempting to thwart Bush's plans by saying there is no immediate crisis. But two-thirds of all Democrats said they worry that there is not enough money to keep Social Security funded until they retire.

They may be out of step, or they may end up leading the parade. If your morning newspaper were your breakfast, equivocal paragraphs like this one would turn it to mush.

The public is pessimistic about reducing partisanship in Bush's second term. Two in three Americans say Bush will not make progress on that front, but the subject ranks low on the public's list of second-term priorities.

See!  It’s pessimism, stupid.

A total of 1,007 randomly selected adults were interviewed Jan. 12 to 16 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

I feel like I’m minus some IQ points after this.