Americans are feeling more optimistic about the economy, according to a New York Times poll Tuesday that found President Obama's approval rating -- 66 percent -- at its highest ever.
But it raised a question: Are the leading opinion makers leading this wave of optimism or not? We looked at nine prominent writers -- three conservatives, three moderates, and three liberals -- and compared statements about Obama that they made between November and January with statements they've made in the last few weeks to determine whether they're feeling rosier about the administration's direction.
What emerges is a punditocracy that has soured toward Obama's policies as the public has lightened up on the economy. Across the spectrum, pundits are finding plenty to gripe about, with conservatives balking at Obama's alleged socialism, moderates wearying of his administration's unpredictable approach to the banking crisis, and even liberals wondering whether he is too cool for comfort.
Here's a brief rundown of each pundit's two month trajectory.
CONSERVATIVES
Bill Kristol: At first he thought Obama might usher in a conservatism-killing era. Now, he spies the glimmers of a con-comeback.
Charles Krauthammer: Where he once saw a political master, Krauthammer now blasts an "Obamaist Manifesto."
George Will: Never persuaded by the promise of national consensus, Will
lambastes the administration's multi-facted, dithering approach to the
crisis.
MODERATES
Andrew Sullivan: Once full of hope, he has recoiled at the budget. Cracks in Sullivan's Obamaphile armor are beginning to show.
David Brooks: Never persuaded by the president, but now he's had enough
of the "über-partisan" spending plan. Brooks also epitomizes the
popular moderate critique that Obama is trying to do too many
peripheral things -- like health care reform -- while the bank crisis
requires his utmost attention.
Peggy Noonan: Inauguration plaudits have given way to accusations of
"unbearable lightness" on the economy. Noonan is tough to pin down on
Obama, because it's clear throughout her writing that she respects his
style but not necessarily his substance.
LIBERALS
EJ Dionne: Always a fan, Dionne defends Obama from the moderate
critique that he's trying too much, because, hey, isn't government
about doing things?
Maureen Dowd: Obama's caution -- long her concern -- has become
passivity, and she fears he lacks the gumption to reel in congressional
dithering.
Paul Krugman: From hope-doubter to budget-lover to bank plan-objector,
Krugman's loyal opposition seeks revolutionary changes over what he
considers Obama's incrementalism.
------------------
FOOTNOTES
Bill Kristol
January 25: "What we have so far, mainly, is an Inaugural Address, and
it suggests that he may have learned more from Reagan than he has
sometimes let on. Obama's speech was unabashedly pro-American and
implicitly conservative."
March 16: " "Public distaste for both the Bush and Obama
administrations' handling of the financial crisis seems to be
crystallizing."
Charles Krauthammer
January 23: "He's Bill Clinton, master politician, but without the
hunger. Clinton craves your adulation (the source of all his troubles).
Obama will take it, but he can leave it, too. He is astonishingly
self-contained. He gives what he must to advance his goals, his
programs, his ambitions. But no more. He has no need to ... By
connecting himself in this historic address to Washington rather than
Lincoln the liberator, Obama was legitimizing the full sweep of
American history without annotation or mental reservation. If we ever
have a post-racial future, this moment will mark its beginning."
February 27: The "Obamaist Manifesto" claimed that "Obama has radically
different ambitions...The spread between Europe and America in
government-controlled GDP has already shrunk from 14 percent to 7
percent. Two terms of Obamaism and the difference will be zero."
George Will
January 21: "His presidency begins as an exercise in psychotherapy for
a nation suffering a crisis of confidence. But neither the nation nor
the government that accurately represents it is constructed for
consensus. And he will be unable to fault his office for his
frustrations because, more than any predecessor except the first, the
44th president enters office with the scope of its powers barely
circumscribed by law, and even less by public opinion."
March 12: "The president's confidence in his capacities is undermining
confidence in his judgment. His way of correcting what he called the
Bush administration's "misplaced priorities" has been to have no
priorities. Mature political leaders know that to govern is to choose
-- to choose what to do and thereby to choose what cannot be done. The
administration insists that it really does have a single priority:
Everything depends on fixing the economy. But it also says that
everything depends on everything"
Andrew Sullivan
November 3: "Obama, moreover, seems to bring out the best in people,
and the calmest, and the sanest. He seems to me to have a blend of
Midwestern good sense, an intuitive understanding of the developing
world that is as much our future now as theirs', an analyst's mind and
a poet's tongue."
March 2: "Does Obama's Budget Math Add Up? In a word: Nope."
David Brooks
January 21: "On Tuesday, President Obama was inaugurated and vowed a
new era. On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee met and
showed the old era was very much alive."
March 2: "But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts.
There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities
and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own
revolutionary fervor -- caught up in the self-flattering belief that
history has called upon it to solve all problems at once."
Peggy Noonan
January 20: "He has the kind of self-confidence that will serve him
well or undo him. He has to be careful about what he wants, because
he's going to get it, at least at the beginning. He claimed a lot of
moderate territory in his Inaugural Address (deepen and expand our
alliances, put aside debates on size of government and aim for
government that is competent and constructive), but no one is certain,
still, what governing philosophy guides him. He would be most unwise to
rouse the sleeping giant that is American conservatism."
March 19: "What strikes one is the weightlessness of the Obama
administration, the jumping from issue to issue and venue to venue from
day to day. Isaiah Berlin famously suggested a leader is a fox or a
hedgehog. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big
thing. In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant
advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are
one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither."
EJ Dionne
January 22: "President Obama intends to use conservative values for
progressive ends. He will cast extreme individualism as an infantile
approach to politics that must be supplanted by a more adult sense of
personal and collective responsibility. He will honor government's role
in our democracy and not degrade it. He wants America to lead the
world, but as much by example as by force. And in trying to do all
these things, he will confuse a lot of people."
March 9: As for criticisms from the moderates, it's balderdash to call
Obama's policies "radical." They seem radical only in comparison with
the right-wing approach the government has pursued in recent years.
Particularly on health care, it would be irresponsible for Obama not to
press the reforms he promised in his campaign. And what could be more
"moderate" than the open, pragmatic approach Obama took during his
White House health-care summit last week? No, the president is not
"overreaching."
Maureen Dowd
January 17: "Even Obama's caution -- a commodity notably absent from
the White House for eight years -- fills people with optimism. It's a
huge relief to be getting an inquisitive, complicated mind in the White
House."
March 3: "In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama
decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge
from the campaign. He's been lecturing us on the need to prune away
frills while the economy fizzles. He was slated to make a speech on
"wasteful spending" on Wednesday.
Paul Krugman
January 22: "I ended Tuesday less confident about the direction of
economic policy than I was in the morning ... Mr. Obama did what people
in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or
less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to
special interests. That's not enough. In fact, it's not even right."
February 27: "These new priorities are laid out in a document whose
clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew
accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence
on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in."
March 26: "But it has become increasingly clear over the past few days
that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of
the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial
marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic."







Case in point: Glenn Beck
http://gotchamedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/let-glenn-beck-eat-economic-cake.html
All your "moderates" are self-described "moderate conservatives." I mean Noonan worked for Reagan and Sullivan is a British Conservative. Where are the "moderate liberals." Oh right, we're all just liberals.
This article has three flaws:
1) The pundits you label as "moderate" aren't. Brooks, Noonan, and Sullivan all fall on the center-right side of the political spectrum. (Also, I'd say Dowd is more centrist than liberal, but that's open to debate.)
2) The quotes have been cherry-picked. Sullivan's said a lot of positive things about Obama recently, but you deliberately picked a negative one to fit your theory. Also, the "old" quotes from Kristol, Krauthammer, and Will are quite possibly the only good things they've said about Obama, and even then, they're fairly backhanded.
3) Even given the incorrect labeling and cherry-picked quotes, the evidence doesn't really support your assertion that "pundits have soured" on Obama. Those who opposed Obama (the conservatives) still oppose him. Those who were "concerned" about Obama (Noonan, Brooks, Dowd, Krugman) are still "concerned". And those who supported Obama (Dionne, Sullivan) still support him.
Please put more effort into your articles in the future.
Darius, three great points. My responses:
1) Yep, they're all conservative-moderates, I guess. But I don't think that's a fatal problem. 'Moderate' is a funny term right now with conservatism moving to the right both on Capitol Hill and in the online opinion community. So I was more thinking 'moderate' as in writers who don't align predictably with the pro -or anti-Obama crowd. Brooks has been very back-and-forth, I think. Noonan doesn't align neatly with the WSJ op-ed page and I think she has a lot of respect for Obama. And Sullivan is a moderate conservative who hates the current Republican party, which in my mind makes it uncontroversial to consider him a moderate (Forbes considered him a 'top liberal').
2) They are cherry-picked, in a sense, because almost all of the quotes come from around the inauguration, where it might have seemed in bad taste to trash a historic presidency before Obama takes his hand off the Bible. So we're starting from the apex of the opinion makers' respect for Obama. But I still think it's illustrative to demonstrate how the conservatives' cautious optimism for Obama (or Kristol's cautious fear for conservatives) spoiled into outright criticism in two months, even as the New York Times reports that the public is moving in the opposite direction.
3) I have to disagree here; the pundit class, as a whole, is clearly more down on Obama than they were in January. Part of this is the nature of punditry, or any criticism. Obama hadn't done anything in January. Now that he has, there's more to criticize. Or we can test the opposite argument: That Obama has become MORE popular in the last two months among prominent media critics. Where would you find proof for this? EJ Dionne, maybe. Who else? To use your three categories, conservatives who once admired/feared him are in mid-season griping form. Those concerned have seen their concerns come to life. And Sullivan is clearly more mixed - on issues from the budget to DADT - than he was in January. That's an overall downward trajectory, and I can't see it any other way.
What do you think?
My concern with this article is that it seems like the main thrust of it is something that's self-evident in this particular sample. As you note in points 2 and 3, it was inevitable that conservative pundits were going to sour on Obama - one could argue that their credibility depended on it. Your liberals, as well, weren't exactly stalwart defenders of Obama (Dionne aside.) Dowd's writing has always been motivated more by pique than policy, and Obama's "coolness" has always been her designated caricature (as it was for B. Clinton's slickness and G. W. Bush's Bushism.) Krugman, progressive hero that he is, has since the heady days of the primary been a gadfly to Obama from the left.
More notable, I'd say, is the sample of moderates selected. As you concede, they're all self-described conservatives. What makes them moderate, by this selection methodology, is their fluid alignment with/against Obama. This seems somewhat of a fallacy as to the selection of moderates - in a sense, you're going after the mean of public opinion as opposed to the median public opinion. As we've seen, the Republican party has skewed right in recent months. You could make an argument that the Overton window has opened up on both ends, with sober minds on one network noting the inevitability of bank nationalization and less sober minds on another claiming that the United States is heading toward socialism or fascism. However, that wild and growing deviation in opinion is only more of a reason why viewing the mean opinion as moderate shows the pundit class growing increasingly disconnected from the public at large.
I think, when it comes down to it, that your main idea is probably right - pundits are likely going to sour on Obama more quickly than the general public. There are a lot of reasons for this, though - Obama's charisma, the institutionalized balance of pundits around the mean opinion, and the natural disconnect between low-information and high-information political priorities. It is a phenomenon, but a natural one.
The pundit class lives in The Bubble. That's all you need to know.
The inclusion of Maureen Dowd on the liberal list is highly offensive. Maybe Arianna Huffington would be better..
And why are all your "moderates" actually righties? Could you find no one from Salon for either the liberal or the moderate category?
Never mind on the rightie moderate question...must read comments first.
Noonan, Brooks and Sullivan moderates....are you kidding me. Sullivan is a moderate conservative the other two are hardline conservatives....Kristol, Krauthammer and Will are ultra hardline conservatives shading to shillism....Dowd a moderate? she's a style gadfly like Krugman is a economic gadfly. The only genuine moderate leftist among them is Dionne....You forget these folks make a living creating controversies where none exist at best or at worst are shills for movement conservatism.....In any case it doesn't seem to bear any relation to what's happening in the real world which is perhaps why journalism is in such dire straits. In the real world the Geithner/Summers/Bernanke regime seems to be stabilizing the financial system......Where ever Obama goes from Prague to our own troops in Iraq the president is treated like a rock star.....he personally created a huge climate of goodwill at the G20 and that's about all you can hope to do at these events and it's important......a series of major bills has been passed.....his monster and transformative budget is going to pass virtually intact......he's rolling back everywhere the more egregious of Bush's regime.....Gates has just announced a hugely transformative defense budget.....Obama's appro rating is at the highest ever and Republicans is at the lowest ever in the new NYT/CBS....but otherwise he's a huge failure......I think you need to go outside and have a reality check Mr Thompson.
"Americans are feeling more optimistic about the economy, according to a New York Times poll Tuesday that found President Obama's approval rating -- 66 percent -- at its highest ever."
Key phrase, of course, is 'New York Times poll.' Like everything else coming out of the Times, it is more likely than not biased in Obama's favor.
Rassmussen tracking had him at 58%. A recent Marist poll had him a full ten points lower than the Times, at 56%. Who to believe?
Obama is probably not as popular as the Times -- and you -- want to believe, and once the general public gets that and gets that it's okay to jump off the "everbody's doing it" bandwagon, chances are they'll be even more okay with telling pollsters they dislike him...since they already dislike his policies.
"That's right," the man said. "I couldn't remember the word." He was the only t, then high school students, and, finally, to anyone aged 13 and over. The website currently has more than 175 million active users in amount of visitors, making Facebook the most popular social network, followed by MySpace and Twitter.other human at the loading dock this morning. The man didn't have a name, just a number, like the rest of the robots. Paris, at Night.