The standing of American presidents in the polls has long been an every-day story in the national press. As the numbers creep up or down hand wringing about the loss or gain of influence fills the op-ed pages and the cable news airwaves. That a president's approval ratings impact his capacity to lead is clear, the nature and degree of this impact, however, is not. President George W. Bush recorded many of his policy victories while his poll numbers were subterranean, and President Obama's approach to his policy agenda seems anything but responsive to the polls. What's going on here? What has changed that would reduce the need for president's to jealously guard their public approval numbers?First, it's important to re-affirm that a president's influence over the public policy agenda IS causally connected to his public approval. The difference today is that the public's approval is more fickle, or flexible, than ever. Or so it seems.
The present media environment has spawned a sort of public "reaction," rather than opinion, cycle. People's views on policy issues, on general questions such as "right and wrong direction" and "job approval" questions seem to have undergone something akin to the "testing effect." The views expressed in standard tracking polls don't have the staying power that they once did. It may be that our warp drive mass media has created a more profound distinction in the minds of Americans between their deeply held beliefs and their "present political postures." Traditionally, we think of politicians and public figures employing the tactic of "posturing," but given the sunami of partisan political argument that has overwhelmed the news gathering business, and news consumption in America, it may be that ordinary Americans are increasingly registering short term reactions to political questions, that may not be easily traced to their core beliefs or worldviews.
Pollster John Zogby seems to have tapped into this technology inspired transformation in the way American opine. When other pollsters are content to report findings at face value, Zogby has assumed that a better measurement of public opinion must get at the consistent views of Americans, the consistent "values" that can sometimes produce what look like inconsistent opinions.
When George W. Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet, he was, nonetheless, able to lead, especially on matters of foreign policy. Why? It could be that while the public's "reaction" to his administration's efforts soured, the under-lying assumptions about America's place in the world and our battle against terrorists may well have remained within the American opinion mainstream.
President Obama's less than aggressive public relations efforts on his major policy proposals looks quite a bit different from the present media story lines when you consider public opinion from Zogby's "values" perspective. Partisan political attack may produce short-term movement in public "reactions" to politics, but voters don't simply react when they go to the polls on Election Day. Voters vote their "values" and to understand their values we must look more closely at the polls for the deeper clues that reveal the public's animating beliefs, not just their present posture.