Reagan Was Not A Relatively Popular President

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:18


Was Reagan a popular President? Comparing his average approval ratings during his time in office to the average approval ratings of other Presidents during the era of public opinion polling indicates that no, he was not a particularly popular President. Here is the easily accessible data from the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut:

Average Presidential Approval Ratings, FDR through current
President # Polls Approve Disapprove Unsure Average Net Approval
Kennedy 40 70.8 16.6 12.7 54.2
Eisenhower 119 64.9 21.4 13.8 43.5
Bush I 134 62.1 27.2 10.7 34.9
FDR 97 62.4 31.5 6.2 30.9
Johnson 83 56.1 30.5 13.6 25.6
Clinton 838 56.7 36.3 7.0 20.4
Reagan 136 52.2 37.3 10.5 14.9
Nixon 96 48.0 37.8 14.1 10.2
Bush II 1289 51.5 41.9 6.1 9.6
Ford 36 46.5 36.9 16.7 9.6
Carter 91 46.7 38.4 15.0 8.3
Truman 65 42.0 43.2 14.7 -1.2

If, in order to determine how popular a President was during his time in office, one looks only at how a President performed during his re-election campaigns, then one is discarding over 99% of data on Presidential popularity. A good analogy is to compare looking only at re-election numbers to computer models designed to rank sports teams that incorporate the controversial margin of victory statistic. Which basketball team had the more dominating victory, a team that led by 25 points almost the entire game, but whose lead slipped to 12 in the final two minutes when the scrubs were in, or a team that was tied the entire game, but made a bunch of free-throws in the last two minutes to win by 14? Obviously, the former had a more dominating victory, since the game was never close. Looking only at the final result, and not the entire course of the game, provides an incomplete picture of overall team performance. In fact, looking only at re-election scores is even more flawed than incorporating margin of victory, since that would be the equivalent of only looking at the half-time score. The best solution is to plot out Presidential popularity over the entire course of a term in office, and to measure the space underneath the curve that represents job approval.

Over the course of his entire term, Reagan’s popularity was entirely unexceptional for polling-era Presidents, ranking 7th of 12. Regan is the low median, and is actually closer to Nixon’s average approval rating than he is to Clinton’s average approval rating. That conservatives do everything in their power to spread the myth that Reagan was more popular than Clinton is a clear ideological agenda that simply is not supported by the facts. It is also a project that Democrats and progressive should fight against, rather than assist.

A couple of other quick notes on this data. First, it won’t be long before Bush II falls behind Ford and Carter in terms of average popularity, to finish his term as the second-least popular President since Herbet Hoover. Second, the Democratic victory in 1992 was fortuitous, given the first Bush’s average approval rating. To return to the sports analogies for a moment, that was a major fourth-quarter rally on the part of Democrats. Reminds me of Illinois vs. Arizona in the Elite Eight back in 2005. (What a game! Arizona actually narrowly avoided an even worse collapse against Providence back in the Elite Eight in 1997.)
Chris Bowers :: Reagan Was Not A Relatively Popular President

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Democrats AIDED Reagan's Popularity--And Saved His Butt On Iran-Contra (0.00 / 0)
Before Iran/Contra broke, Democrats helped suppress it coming out, as I've mentioned before, quoting directly from Robert Parry, the reporter primarily responsible for breaking the story.

Then, after Iran/Contra broke, the Democrats announced in advance of any investigations that "no one is talking about impeachment," which not only let Reagan directly off the hook, but threw away an enormous strategic advantage for leveraging others to come forward and tell the truth--which in turn helped spread confusion, further the coverup, and let Reagan distance himself all the more.

Still, Reagan's approval levels took a major hit, but Democrats continued to treat him with kid gloves.  It was lifelong Republican, Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who made the most damning case, first in his investigations, then in his book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up, where he makes it quite clear that the cover-up to protect Reagan and Bush succeeded.  If the cover-up had not succeeded--in particular, if Democrats had backed Walsh up (not least by letting him make his case before giving immunity to Oliver North)--then Reagan's image today would be much closer to Nixon's and his poll numbers, too, would be significantly lower as well.

And that's not even saying anything about the October Surprise arms-for-hostages deal with Iran that put him in the White House in the first place.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Correct me if I am wrong (0.00 / 0)
And I might be, since I was in seventh grade during Iran-Contra, but I thought the arms-for hostages deal was tied into Iran contra. Or maybe I was just 12-13 years old, and don't remember very well.

[ Parent ]
Yes, It Was (0.00 / 0)
You are correct in terms of the basic story, and what was known at the time.

But it started before the Contra side was even in the picture, although this only strongly suspected at the time by those in the know.  This is the aspect that was entirely buried, and doesn't even make it into Walsh's book.

After years of outside agitation, Congress finally investigated the October Surprise allegations in 1992, under the leadership of Lieberman's John the Baptist, Lee Hamilton. Although Hamilton basically did a prefunctory, going-through-the-motions job, he did send a reguest to Russian intelligence to find out what they knew.  And just as the report was being readied for printing, the Russians finally responded with a bombshell--which Hamilton then buried, just as Clinton was aobut to be inaugurated.

Parry discovered the Russian report several years later, hidden away in a bathroom that had been converted into a storage room.  His reporting on all this can be found at Consortiumnews.com, in the section The October Surprise "X-Files"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
As far as I know - they are. (0.00 / 0)
The "October Surprise" was a deal that offered "moderate" elements in the Iranian government some weapons (TOW missiles, perhaps?) in the future, IF they would see to it that the US hostages held by the Iranians would not be released until after Reagan won the WH from Carter.  The idea being that, if the hostages were released BEFORE the election, Carter might actually be able to win, because the hostages were is political down-fall.

Later, the cabal from the NSA (including Oliver North) were charged with following through on this promise.  Of course, it all had to done on the sly.  So North figured a way to "steal" some missiles  - using the CIA and their dummy corporations as  cover - and sell these to someone in Iran.  This deal generated some serious cash - off-the-books cash.  So, seeing that the US Congress had stopped the US from officially supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, it was a small leap to figure out how to use those ill-gotten gains to buy supplies and weapons for the Contras and smuggle them into Nicaragua by way of Johin Hull's ranch in Honduras, or later, by way of Gen. Noriega's "ranch" in Panama. 

The story broke in reverse order, though - the "contra" part getting uncovered first, THEN the connection back to the Iran part.  This set the stage for the dissociation of these events  - which no one, Republican, or Democrat - apparently wanted to tie together in any substantial way.  I can see how the partisan interests of the GOP might allow them to white-wash the issue - and dissociate a scandal that got public hearings from the October Surprise that brought Reagan and Bush the First into power - but I have never understood why the Dems played along.  Maybe they got really good blow at wholesale prices from Noriega?  Or maybe they are just Republicans at heart.

Regardless - with this scandal blowing through the nation, we ended up with Michael Dukakis driving around in a tank looking for a way to beat Bush the First in the next election.  Willful ignorance of serious crimes seemed to be a plank in the Democratic party platform.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I got that time-line wrong (0.00 / 0)
Manuel Noriega was the first choice as the conduit for arms to the Contras.  Oliver North's main contribution to the situation was that he figured out a way to get the arms to Nicaragua without involving Noreiga  - North didn't like dealing with Noreiga because he had a habit of collecting information on the dirty little secrets of those with whom he worked - in this case, Bush the First - and this did not sit well with North. 

Of course, GHWB had his own ideas about how to deal with Noriega, as we saw during his third term in office.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Amazing-- any good books on this? (0.00 / 0)
Amazing how Reagan has become SUCH an icon.

Any good books on how the right made him this icon?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


No books, but (0.00 / 0)
I imagine many books have chapters about this process.

[ Parent ]
There's A GREAT Book On The Media's Role (0.00 / 0)
Mark Hertzgaard's On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency.

An utterly amazing book.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Reagan's "landslide" wasn't (0.00 / 0)
As I noted elsewhere, he won a landslide of electoral votes, but given that only slightly more than half of the voting-age population voted, and he won about 60% of those actual votes, he only won about 30% of the voting-age population.  So these figures don't surprise me at all, given that he never really was all that popular to being with.

Actually, He Barely Cracked 50% In 1980 (0.00 / 0)
Carter was deeply unpopular due to his mishandling of the hostage crisis--though, in the end, no one died, which is a hell of a lot better than most conservative "successes."

But even though Carter only got around 41%, John Anderson, a Republican turned independent, made a strong third party showing, and combined with other third party candidates came very close to denying Reagan a popular vote majority.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
While I applaud you for presenting the facts, it would behoove us all to remember that we live amongst an electorate that does not know or care about the information you have presented. The vast majority of Americans will continue to cling to their notion that Reagan is the greatest American president in out lifetimes. Only the politically well-informed, liberally inclined voters are aware of this discrepancy between legend and fact.

Conservatives would choose to believe the lie regardless of what information you present to them.
And the rest of the rabble simply wouldn't care enough to give you or anyone else the time to even present this information. It is just so much easier for them to stick with what they know, regardless of how ill-informed or blatantly false their conception of Reagan may be.

Just sayin'.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


Guys (0.00 / 0)
No matter how many times we say Reagan was a terrible president his position as a cultural icon is not going to change. We need to MLK him. Just as MLK's image has been watered down- his anti-war activism forgotten, his socialism stricken from history- we need turn Reagan from a conservative  icon to an American one. If we get to the point where all people think about Reagan is optimism and popularity then we've won.

For goodness sake, why would Obama consider the civil rights movement an excess?!

(And I'm not even an Obama supporter, damn it!)


That's Just What I Want To Know! (0.00 / 0)
For goodness sake, why would Obama consider the civil rights movement an excess?!


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Come on (0.00 / 0)
Why does that have to be what he means by excess? Lets at least get a statement from the campaign before we start ascribing right wing beliefs to the guy.

Also, all this pales in comparison to the idiocy of showing up for an interview with a right wing ed board. Why don't we freak out about that some more?


[ Parent ]
Because That's What's Out There, Dude! (0.00 / 0)
The right wing has been out there demonizing the 1960s since the middle of that decade.  And civil rights was one of the main reasons why.  If you're going to redefine the whole "excesses of the 1960s" frame, the time to do it is right upfront when you first use the term.

Furthermore, I wasn't ascribing rightwing beliefs to Obama.  I said he was echoing them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Timing (0.00 / 0)
Reagan engineered a deep recession to take inflation (caused by rising oil prices, mostly) out of the economy.  He very specifically slashed away at the disabled and poor taking huge chunks of people at least temporarily off the disability rolls.  And he paid for it, losing 27 House seats in the 1982 elections.  While Reagan benefited politically from the recovery stage of the recession ("Morning in America", +16 House and 2 Senate seats, reelection), he was not so popular for the rest of his tenure and losing seats in both 1986 (5 House, 8 Senate) and in 1988 (2 House, 1 Senate).

Bush II has followed Ronny's gig:  the only time he was over 50% in the approval ratings in nearly 5 years was the first half of November 2004.

Nancy begged Johnny Carson to lay off the jokes and the king of comics complied lest he take down yet another President (remember Rich Little doing Nixon's "I am Not a Crook", Chevy Chase falling down as Gerald Ford, and the serious Nightline "America Held Hostage: Day xxx graphic from Jimmy Carter.  Even LBJ is remembered for leaving amidst a chorus of "hey, hey LBJ/ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today."

The meme was that America was reeling due to a series of failed Presidents akin to the pre-Civil War Era and the media and the Democrats had to lay off to save the country.  Honest.  Real hogwash but they bought it and that is why he got the pass and immunity from impeachment hearings.


Why did Clinton get impeached, then? (0.00 / 0)
If the general sense in the nation was that the Congress had to "lay off" the President in order to "save the country" - why wasn't that argument used to stop the Republicans from impeaching Clinton?

And why wasn't Bush the First taken to task for Iran/Contra?

Is it ONLY Democrats that have to "lay off" the Presidents?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Because Democrats CAN'T Be President! (4.00 / 1)
It's written in the Constitution.

God said so.

Mike Hucklebee told me, so it must be true.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Paul's got it (4.00 / 1)
1.  Republicans "make" the rules and then ignore them.  After all. they don't believe in governing but they do believe in using power to advance the cause and wealth of their friends.  Democrats actually take government more seriously so they are more likely to obey the rules.

2.  Republicans live by a sort of "even ref job" theory.  Neither team should get more penalties regardless of behavior.  That is unfair.  Sime Republicans still thought the country "owed them one" to make up for Richard Nixon.  Of course, these are the same people who justified stealing the 2000 election based on myths of Nixon being rooked in 1960 (mathematically impossible plus the many recounts Nixon and the Republicans were paying for at the time showed no hanky panky took place at the Presidential level).

3.  The general sense of Versailles and the elite pinditry was not the same as the general sense of the country.  The DC cocktail circuit felt from the start that Bill Clinton has no business "ruining" "their town."  Elections be damned. The publis obviously did not feel that way (see e;ections, polls, etc.) 

4.  The media has gotten increasingly corporate and increasingly hostile to Democrats and pandering to Republicans.  In the last election, the corporate heads of the parent companies of two networks not named Fox made it quite clear they wanted Bush to win.  Jack Welch (GE/NBC), of course, was a bit private about it but made it very clear to Brian Williams that the corporate welfare of NBC parent GE required a Republican win (GE is a major military contractor).  Sumner redstone was more blatant and public about it.  And Disney/ABC was part of the same group.  In their case boycotts and the FCC were the triggers.  (With the fallout from the AOL merger, the independence of CNN was shut off and the traditionally corporate/Republican Time Inc. people have been running the show.


[ Parent ]
If that is "it", we are screwed (0.00 / 0)
1) "Republicans "make" the rules and then ignore them.  After all. they don't believe in governing but they do believe in using power to advance the cause and wealth of their friends.  Democrats actually take government more seriously so they are more likely to obey the rules."

Forgive me if I sound "angry", but this response is a weak defense of a ridiculously weak Democratic party.  First of all, the "lay off the President" theme is a "rule" in only the most water-down version of that word.  Its more along the lines of a suggestion - or an expressed hope - a plea, even. Any group of people that would take such things seriously does not deserve to be considered a separate party - let alone an opposition party.  Using this shoddy excuse simply tries to make their complicity in the sham governance you describe appear like good intentions gone bad. 

2) Who gives a fuck what Republicans think about referees and fairness?  You know, there is alot of talk on this site about "frames" and not getting caught up in those created by your opponent - this response takes the Republican "frame" and seeks to use it to explain the actions of the Democrats.  To the extent that this is true - what you are describing (seemingly without any critique) is a complete capitulation of the Democrats to the whims of the GOP - even while you admit that the GOP doesn't even accept these positions.  Can you imagine a weaker opposition party?  I can't.

Besides - IF this were actually a viable position, then Bush the Second should be impeached because the Democrats are "owed one" for the impeachment of Clinton.  But, of course, we are playing within the Republican frame expressed in #1, so the "rules" don't apply.

3) Again, complete acceptance of the GOP version of reality.  I'm not saying that you and Paul accept this version - but the Democratic Party, in general - they not only accept it - they seem to play their role in it as well as any old lap-dog I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.  Actually, my lap-dogs have shown more back-bone than the Democrats your describe.

4) This comment takes the issue into the current day.  What you describe is a consolidation of power by the right wing.  A consolidation that was aided and abetted by the so-called opposition party. 

So, why the continued faith in the Democratic Party?  Why should you give one whit of your effort and thought to the support of the Democrats, when - by your own analyses - they  have consistently and predictably refused to confront, indeed have aided, the very trends in our political system that you so strongly condemn?

I mean, when I read Paul's writings about the culture wars and learn that the right wing has, basically, taken control of the mechanisms and institutions that "create" or define our culture (I'm accepting your frame, now) it seems obvious that our electoral/political system is one of the things they have subdued. In that case - isn't the whole concept of "changing the system from within" simply playing into their hands?  Won't it simply provide just enough appearance of reform to pacify the masses, while leaving the basic structure of oppression in place?

To steal another slogan from Reagan - isn't it time to "Just Say No!" ?

NO - we don't accept your version of reality - we don't accept this corrupted system as the basis of governance - we will not play nice - we will not play by these perverted "rules" - and we will no longer tacitly accept this "democracy" by pretending that the Democratic Party has any ability to function in opposition.

Again, I apologize for the anger - only because I don't want to get "Edwarded", that is ignored and demeaned. 

Seriously, I'm genuinely struggling to understand why folks that think as you do still believe that the Democratic Party has any credibility whatsoever - going forward - not just looking to the past.  I mean - ain't that just another version of living a fantasy? 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox