Next Question
RSS
As @philipy pointed out, there has been a trend towards increased polarization over the past several presidents, so in some sense, Obama’s high polarization index is just a continuation of that.
But I recall that part of Obama’s platform—on which he banked much of his image during the campaign was bringing “change” to Washington, part of which would come from a departure from petty partisan politics. Now, again, as @philipy mentioned, it’s still early in his tenure—certainly much too early to conclusively say he’s failed in his goal of uniting. However, the Gallup poll that shows his approval rating becoming more polarized during the past three months suggests that whatever actions his administration has taken since coming into office have had an effect other than unification. In fact, his inauguration-day poll numbers were actually not horrible among republicans (from the Gallup poll, there is a -47 R-D gap on inauguration day, comparable to the R-D difference noted in the Pew data for the Clinton or Reagan administrations in April and May (respectively). This suggests that at the start of his tenure, republicans regarded him no worse than they regarded Clinton after a few months in office, or than democrats regarded Reagan after a few months in office.
What’s interesting from these two polls, then, is not that there is a current high degree of polarization in Obama’s approval rating, but that the candidate who campaigned on promises to end bipartisan bickering has apparently so far made it worse. Why is that?
Well, one suggestion would be that republicans simply don’t respond well to not being in power, or as @dumblonde suggested in a comment above that low approval ratings could be attributed in part to the hard times during which he took office, and the fact that his approval numbers have dropped primarily among republicans may suggest simply that as the opposition party, they are more critical of his actions. I suspect that's true. But then again, to believe in your conciliatory abilities strongly enough to make hope and change an integral part of your campaign rhetoric, shouldn’t you be able at least to “sweet-talk” the opposition into going along with you? Isn’t bringing people together and working alongside them a part of being a great leader? I realize it’s a lofty standard, but it’s one Obama set for himself.
Source(s):
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-h...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.as...
Permalink | Report
But an interesting thing to note from the table is that Bill Clinton's early job approval rating from Republicans was even lower! (26% for Clinton in Apr 1993, as opposed to 27% for Obama.)
So what makes Obama's "gap" big is not that he is exceptionally disliked by Republicans, but that he is so loved by Democrats.
He's also much more approved by independents than Clinton was, though that doesn't contribute to the measure of "partisan gap" that is being used here.
The article also states:
"The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon."
So we've had another 16 years of that long-term trend since the comparable data point for Bill Clinton.
From the data, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about Barack Obama being divisive. Perhaps the only thing that we can really say is that in the few months since he was elected, he has not yet made much difference to bridging the partisan divisions that have been growing for a long time.
But that was never going to be the work of a few months, and I'm glad to see he seems intent on keeping working to achieve that.
Also, his concept of bipartisanship is not that people always agree, but that they can disagree respectfully, and still value each other despite their differences. I suspect that many Republicans who think his policies are a mistake would still feel that he's a good and capable man.
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
There's still an element of race. Some people will never approve because he's black. You can safely say that many republicans and conservatives are not keen on having a black president.
The conditions are so different now than when Bush was elected president. Even though there was the controversial court case and the Florida fiasco, the economy was stable, things were looking up, budget surplus, peacetime, and everyone was relatively happy. So it wasn't as much a polarizing election.
When we see now, we have a black president in the face of millions of white conservatives, many of them racist; the elections left the Republican party in shambles and "Change has not come". The economy is in the dumps, we're at war, there's a ridiculous deficit... It is to be expected that opinions would be much more divided.
And stemming from this, Obama needs to stop pandering to be bipartisan and just follow his agenda because if this poll proves anything is that the way Republicans will regain political capital among their constituents is by naysaying Obama all the way to 2012. And if they bet against Obama and Obama's policies fail, they will win.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
April 08, 2009 03:30 PM
Why do you think Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades?
"For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%). By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush's job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic
Please avoid saying that one party is the evil or the good side. Obviously most democrats disliked Bush, but even his gap wasn't so large. What is causing this divide?
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic
Please avoid saying that one party is the evil or the good side. Obviously most democrats disliked Bush, but even his gap wasn't so large. What is causing this divide?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Obama Administration |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| April 09, 2009 01:15 PM |
But I recall that part of Obama’s platform—on which he banked much of his image during the campaign was bringing “change” to Washington, part of which would come from a departure from petty partisan politics. Now, again, as @philipy mentioned, it’s still early in his tenure—certainly much too early to conclusively say he’s failed in his goal of uniting. However, the Gallup poll that shows his approval rating becoming more polarized during the past three months suggests that whatever actions his administration has taken since coming into office have had an effect other than unification. In fact, his inauguration-day poll numbers were actually not horrible among republicans (from the Gallup poll, there is a -47 R-D gap on inauguration day, comparable to the R-D difference noted in the Pew data for the Clinton or Reagan administrations in April and May (respectively). This suggests that at the start of his tenure, republicans regarded him no worse than they regarded Clinton after a few months in office, or than democrats regarded Reagan after a few months in office.
What’s interesting from these two polls, then, is not that there is a current high degree of polarization in Obama’s approval rating, but that the candidate who campaigned on promises to end bipartisan bickering has apparently so far made it worse. Why is that?
Well, one suggestion would be that republicans simply don’t respond well to not being in power, or as @dumblonde suggested in a comment above that low approval ratings could be attributed in part to the hard times during which he took office, and the fact that his approval numbers have dropped primarily among republicans may suggest simply that as the opposition party, they are more critical of his actions. I suspect that's true. But then again, to believe in your conciliatory abilities strongly enough to make hope and change an integral part of your campaign rhetoric, shouldn’t you be able at least to “sweet-talk” the opposition into going along with you? Isn’t bringing people together and working alongside them a part of being a great leader? I realize it’s a lofty standard, but it’s one Obama set for himself.
Source(s):
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-h...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.as...
| Asker's Rating: |
• Good summary of ideas in a balanced way.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (2)
April 08, 2009 03:59 PM
I'm quite surprised to see that's the case. But an interesting thing to note from the table is that Bill Clinton's early job approval rating from Republicans was even lower! (26% for Clinton in Apr 1993, as opposed to 27% for Obama.)
So what makes Obama's "gap" big is not that he is exceptionally disliked by Republicans, but that he is so loved by Democrats.
He's also much more approved by independents than Clinton was, though that doesn't contribute to the measure of "partisan gap" that is being used here.
The article also states:
"The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon."
So we've had another 16 years of that long-term trend since the comparable data point for Bill Clinton.
From the data, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about Barack Obama being divisive. Perhaps the only thing that we can really say is that in the few months since he was elected, he has not yet made much difference to bridging the partisan divisions that have been growing for a long time.
But that was never going to be the work of a few months, and I'm glad to see he seems intent on keeping working to achieve that.
Also, his concept of bipartisanship is not that people always agree, but that they can disagree respectfully, and still value each other despite their differences. I suspect that many Republicans who think his policies are a mistake would still feel that he's a good and capable man.
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Helpful: mrnemo, dumblonde, mac5150, littleghost, interzone
Tip philipy for this answer
Reply
April 08, 2009 04:35 PM
- New Source
I’m not sure your final suggestion that “many Republicans who think his policies are a mistake would still feel that he's a good and capable man” is entirely relevant. They may indeed think him a great individual—nice, personable, big-hearted, what have you, but his personality (or perceived personality) doesn’t say much about his partisanship or lack thereof. As partisanship is not a measure of one’s popularity but of one’s ideological stance, it’s entirely possible to be the nicest person in the world while also being the most partisan.
Your point that 4 months into his presidency is too early to say that Obama has failed in his goal of bringing people together is, however, well taken, but consider this timeline from Gallup, which shows that the partisan divide has actually increased substantially since his inauguration: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx
I calculate a -47 R-D diff. in mid-January as opposed to a -63 R-D diff. in the most recent data. It would seem from this that his actions since inauguration have made what appears to have been a historically mild inauguration divide worse.
Report
Your point that 4 months into his presidency is too early to say that Obama has failed in his goal of bringing people together is, however, well taken, but consider this timeline from Gallup, which shows that the partisan divide has actually increased substantially since his inauguration: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx
I calculate a -47 R-D diff. in mid-January as opposed to a -63 R-D diff. in the most recent data. It would seem from this that his actions since inauguration have made what appears to have been a historically mild inauguration divide worse.
April 08, 2009 05:13 PM
"So what makes Obama's "gap" big is not that he is exceptionally disliked by Republicans, but that he is so loved by Democrats."
But when you compare it against Bush in 2001. Bush was also exceptionally loved by Republicans, except less hated by Democrats. 36% of Dems were ok with Bush vs. 27% of Republicans being ok with Obama. Democrats liked Bush more than Republicans like Obama right now.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1178-1.gif
Report
But when you compare it against Bush in 2001. Bush was also exceptionally loved by Republicans, except less hated by Democrats. 36% of Dems were ok with Bush vs. 27% of Republicans being ok with Obama. Democrats liked Bush more than Republicans like Obama right now.
April 18, 2009 01:01 AM
@dumblonde... belated response I know.
I didn't point it out because I assumed people would notice in the data. Both Bush Snr and George W Bush had pretty high approval ratings from Democrats, both Bill Clinton and Obama had nearly identical low rating from Republicans.
So whatever is going on there, it's not IMO a new thing.
For some reason it seems Democrats are more willing to give Republican presidents a chance than vice versa.
Report
I didn't point it out because I assumed people would notice in the data. Both Bush Snr and George W Bush had pretty high approval ratings from Democrats, both Bill Clinton and Obama had nearly identical low rating from Republicans.
So whatever is going on there, it's not IMO a new thing.
For some reason it seems Democrats are more willing to give Republican presidents a chance than vice versa.
April 22, 2009 09:14 PM
@philipy
If we were talking about inauguration day statistics, then your point would be valid. But the data from the Pew research poll are taken several months after inauguration—so they are really early “on-the-job” ratings rather than gauges of how willing the opposition party is to give the president “a chance.” If you check out the Gallup poll data, which tracks Obama’s approval rating since inauguration, you can see that apparently Republicans were comparatively willing to give Obama a chance. It’s just that so far, his actions in office have not inspired confidence in the opposition party.
So I don’t think your conclusion that Democrats are naturally more open-hearted than Republicans is a valid one.
At any rate, the point in your initial post was that “in the few months since he was elected, he has not yet made much difference to bridging the partisan divisions that have been growing for a long time.” The problem is, according the Gallup poll data, he's actually used that time to worsen partisan divisions.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/terbpsfsx0-ckapfb3aygw.gif
Report
If we were talking about inauguration day statistics, then your point would be valid. But the data from the Pew research poll are taken several months after inauguration—so they are really early “on-the-job” ratings rather than gauges of how willing the opposition party is to give the president “a chance.” If you check out the Gallup poll data, which tracks Obama’s approval rating since inauguration, you can see that apparently Republicans were comparatively willing to give Obama a chance. It’s just that so far, his actions in office have not inspired confidence in the opposition party.
So I don’t think your conclusion that Democrats are naturally more open-hearted than Republicans is a valid one.
At any rate, the point in your initial post was that “in the few months since he was elected, he has not yet made much difference to bridging the partisan divisions that have been growing for a long time.” The problem is, according the Gallup poll data, he's actually used that time to worsen partisan divisions.
April 22, 2009 10:09 PM
The data says what it does, and you are adding interpretations to it.
The data doesn't say "Obama caused X" is says "X happened". Honeymoon periods end. Maybe they end even faster when people are worried. If you want to write a PhD thesis about it you might be able to prove something. A graph or two doesn't do the trick.
You could equally well argue that rather than being resposible for causing divisions, he was responsible for a brief period when divisions were much reduced, before people reverted back to their habitual patterns.
Another factor to throw into the mix is that Obama's been very active, partly out of necessity, partly out of choice. So he's got through a year or two's worth of doing things that would annoy Republicans in less than a hundred days.
I'm not saying any one of these theories is right. I am saying: Insufficient data, be wary of jumping to conclusions, and be wary your motives for wanting to jump to those conclusions.
Report
The data doesn't say "Obama caused X" is says "X happened". Honeymoon periods end. Maybe they end even faster when people are worried. If you want to write a PhD thesis about it you might be able to prove something. A graph or two doesn't do the trick.
You could equally well argue that rather than being resposible for causing divisions, he was responsible for a brief period when divisions were much reduced, before people reverted back to their habitual patterns.
Another factor to throw into the mix is that Obama's been very active, partly out of necessity, partly out of choice. So he's got through a year or two's worth of doing things that would annoy Republicans in less than a hundred days.
I'm not saying any one of these theories is right. I am saying: Insufficient data, be wary of jumping to conclusions, and be wary your motives for wanting to jump to those conclusions.
April 08, 2009 05:04 PM
I think the times are tough, the election was extremely polarizing, and Republicans have not yet recovered enough to even begin approving of Obama. There's still an element of race. Some people will never approve because he's black. You can safely say that many republicans and conservatives are not keen on having a black president.
The conditions are so different now than when Bush was elected president. Even though there was the controversial court case and the Florida fiasco, the economy was stable, things were looking up, budget surplus, peacetime, and everyone was relatively happy. So it wasn't as much a polarizing election.
When we see now, we have a black president in the face of millions of white conservatives, many of them racist; the elections left the Republican party in shambles and "Change has not come". The economy is in the dumps, we're at war, there's a ridiculous deficit... It is to be expected that opinions would be much more divided.
And stemming from this, Obama needs to stop pandering to be bipartisan and just follow his agenda because if this poll proves anything is that the way Republicans will regain political capital among their constituents is by naysaying Obama all the way to 2012. And if they bet against Obama and Obama's policies fail, they will win.
Permalink | Report
Reply
April 08, 2009 05:11 PM
- Fact Refuted
I’m curious as to the sources of your conclusions that many white Republicans are racist. The newly-elected chairman of the Republican party is a black man, and there is some evidence to suggest that had Colin Powell thrown his hat in the ring in 1996, he could have won the Republican nomination (he polled particularly strong in southern states). Since then, there have also been calls for Condi Rice to run for president.
Moreover, the "it's because Repblicans are racist" claim addresses Obama's initial approval ratings, not his steady drop in approval among Republicans since his inauguration. (see graph two from http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx ). It would seem that Obama's actions in office have affected his approval since inauguration more than prejudices.
Regarding the 2000 election, I seem to recall that to have been fairly polarizing as well. Didn't that whole recount fiasco in Florida cause many on the Left to assert for many months that the election was stolen? So it’s not exactly like G.W. Bush was walking into a political paradise.
Report
Moreover, the "it's because Repblicans are racist" claim addresses Obama's initial approval ratings, not his steady drop in approval among Republicans since his inauguration. (see graph two from http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx ). It would seem that Obama's actions in office have affected his approval since inauguration more than prejudices.
Regarding the 2000 election, I seem to recall that to have been fairly polarizing as well. Didn't that whole recount fiasco in Florida cause many on the Left to assert for many months that the election was stolen? So it’s not exactly like G.W. Bush was walking into a political paradise.
April 08, 2009 05:39 PM
Here's the graph I mention above
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/terbpsfsx0-ckapfb3aygw.gif
Report
April 08, 2009 05:44 PM
On racism:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738018/
http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
But it's obviously a value judgment as no one will answer a question and say Are you racist? yes/no on their ballot.
I also think there was a lot of race baiting in this election. Not from McCain necessarily but from the "pundits" that preach their gospels and the RNC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNFokenPInk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErNpERWcHVo
The other information about the Bush election being less polarizing stems from the poll data itself. Look at the numbers. More Democrats (36%) approved of Bush than Republicans (27%) approve of Obama right now. And the difference in the data shows less polarization. It's simple arithmetic.
The point I was trying to make, in case it got lost in the word racism is that things are more polarized because times are tougher.
Report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738018/
http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
But it's obviously a value judgment as no one will answer a question and say Are you racist? yes/no on their ballot.
I also think there was a lot of race baiting in this election. Not from McCain necessarily but from the "pundits" that preach their gospels and the RNC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNFokenPInk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErNpERWcHVo
The other information about the Bush election being less polarizing stems from the poll data itself. Look at the numbers. More Democrats (36%) approved of Bush than Republicans (27%) approve of Obama right now. And the difference in the data shows less polarization. It's simple arithmetic.
The point I was trying to make, in case it got lost in the word racism is that things are more polarized because times are tougher.
April 08, 2009 05:46 PM
I wonder what that spike in March is for. It seems weird. (in the Gallup graph)
Report
April 08, 2009 08:10 PM
Ok, to clear the air on the racism point first. I’m certainly not trying to say racism doesn’t exist in the world—white against black as well as black against white (as well as other groups against each other). I don’t doubt that the fact that the president is black has caused anger in white racists and perhaps feelings of vindication among some in the black population. Even providing that all the events in the msnbc article are well substantiated (and I think there’s a case that some are rather tenuous—in particular the my-daughter-said-someone-on-the-bus-made-a-racist-comment allegation comes to mind), the link between the post-election day allegations of racism and the polarization in Obama’s approval numbers from either the Pew or Gallup poll is not well established.
I think we could agree that the problem with racism is a problem of prejudice—the act of pre-judging someone on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic (skin color). My point is that the Gallup poll data shows that Obama’s approval rating has gone down since his election. This indicates that it is performance based—not prejudicial.
Your point that times in general were easier in 2000 is noted. But again the more compelling question to me is why the increase in polarization in the months following Obama’s inauguration. What has his administration done to exacerbate the divide? Doesn't a drop in approval rating suggest that even though times are harder, many do not approve of the measures taken by the current administration to address the problems of the day?
Report
I think we could agree that the problem with racism is a problem of prejudice—the act of pre-judging someone on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic (skin color). My point is that the Gallup poll data shows that Obama’s approval rating has gone down since his election. This indicates that it is performance based—not prejudicial.
Your point that times in general were easier in 2000 is noted. But again the more compelling question to me is why the increase in polarization in the months following Obama’s inauguration. What has his administration done to exacerbate the divide? Doesn't a drop in approval rating suggest that even though times are harder, many do not approve of the measures taken by the current administration to address the problems of the day?
April 08, 2009 08:44 PM
Just that there isn't a feel that anything's changed. They are still fighting about bailouts, the spending bill has been controversial, unemployment is soaring, and because times are harder people want things to get better fast. And because republicans are the opposition, I think it's only natural that they are quicker to judge if things are "working" or not.
Report
April 08, 2009 10:41 PM
- New Source
Interesting fact about the second video you post above (with the song “Barack the Magic Negro” … sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon—when I heard the clip, I thought, “wow, now that’s inappropriate): it’s actually a parody of an article from March 2007 in the LA times written by liberal columnist David Ehrenstein.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center
In the article, Ehrenstein argues that then-presidential hopeful Obama fits the mythical figure of the Magical Negro (he cites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro). Ehrenstein explains that the role of this figure is to assuage white “guilt” due to slavery and segregation, but that the figure is not one whom whites find sexually threatening (hey, I didn’t say it… it’s in the article). Ehrenstein also points out the “magical” way in which all criticism of Obama seems to fade away (“even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, ‘magically.’”) The only real criticism of Obama at the time was, apparently, that he just wasn’t an authentic enough black person (again, in the article).
Ehrenstein concludes that “Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most.”
If you listen to the entire song from that second video, it’s clearly a parody encapsulation of Ehrenstein’s opinion article in the LA Times. The song was apparently originally put together by the Rush Limbaugh show to illustrate the absurdity of the article (the singer is supposed to be Al Sharpton).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200012
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/barackthemagicnegro.asx
Report
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center
In the article, Ehrenstein argues that then-presidential hopeful Obama fits the mythical figure of the Magical Negro (he cites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro). Ehrenstein explains that the role of this figure is to assuage white “guilt” due to slavery and segregation, but that the figure is not one whom whites find sexually threatening (hey, I didn’t say it… it’s in the article). Ehrenstein also points out the “magical” way in which all criticism of Obama seems to fade away (“even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, ‘magically.’”) The only real criticism of Obama at the time was, apparently, that he just wasn’t an authentic enough black person (again, in the article).
Ehrenstein concludes that “Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most.”
If you listen to the entire song from that second video, it’s clearly a parody encapsulation of Ehrenstein’s opinion article in the LA Times. The song was apparently originally put together by the Rush Limbaugh show to illustrate the absurdity of the article (the singer is supposed to be Al Sharpton).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200012
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/barackthemagicnegro.asx
Answer this Question
Related Questions
After how many days do you get tired of leftover turkey from Thanksgiving?
Could you ever see yourself offering a bribe, if so, under what circumstance?
I'm just starting to play World Of Warcraft. Any tips for a beginner?
We've all heard the expression it will cost you an arm and a leg; is there anything t...
Could you ever see yourself offering a bribe, if so, under what circumstance?
I'm just starting to play World Of Warcraft. Any tips for a beginner?
We've all heard the expression it will cost you an arm and a leg; is there anything t...
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- gopats11, November 28, 2009 04:46 AM
- jbantha, November 28, 2009 04:32 AM
- metalcorpseix, November 28, 2009 04:31 AM
- montez22, November 28, 2009 04:28 AM
- jitzmanzano, November 28, 2009 04:28 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
My point that many Republicans would think Obama is decent and capable is relevant because as I said, he was never suggesting the aim was that people would all agree. Rather that we wanted to get to a culture where people disagreed respectfully and valued each other despite their differences. That neither side treat the other as if they are evil or idiots.
I think it's a core part of his philosophy, and it's certainly a core part of mine.
I don't expect a culture of mutual respect to break out throughout the world instantly, but I do expect we'll make progress with it over the next many decades.
Certainly disagreeing respectfully is in most cases an admirable trait. However, your response raises the question of what is meant by bipartisanship. The definition you seem to hold of bipartisanship seems to be a respectable disagreement on policy while maintaining civil discourse.
But if a partisan is “an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance” then, bipartisanship must be taken to be the absence of support for any particular group, party, or cause.
Civility in public discourse is not the same as bipartisanship. I don't think the case is ironclad that Obama has used his few months in office to advance bipartisanship according to the latter definition.