From George Packer’s 9000-word slog in the New Yorker (subscription required… blog post here) to the Economist’s “Failure to lead” article, most reviews of Obama’s first year have been shrugs at best and condemnations at worst. Packer’s piece is indicative of the genre — Obama has failed to talk to the “average American,” his biggest fault apparently.
This is all malarkey. There are legitimate reasons for souring on the Obama Administration, the most obvious case being his steady retreat on civil liberties (so much so that one wonders if he was ever out there on civil liberties). To knock him for his inability to communicate with the public is stupid, but about as stupid as thinking Obama won the election based on soaring rhetoric and thoughts of structural change in Washington. There is one reason why Obama’s disapproval is higher.
There are anomalies on this graph, sure. 9/11, Iran/Contra, Lewinsky, etc. The general trend, however, is undeniable.
My guess: when the economy improves and unemployment goes down, the same class of political journalist will be clamoring to write articles about Obama’s “comeback” and how his political team got its “mojo” back. I like Packer’s writing, but this genre of article is exactly the kind of narrative-obsessed, inside-baseball nonsense that gets held up as investigative journalism.
Yes, Obama’s approval’s in the tank. But there’s a reason they give the President four-year terms.