web analytics
October 22, 2014 / 28 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

Believing Red But Voting Blue


What’s the state of the republic one month into the Obama presidency? It’s a state of deep confusion. Here are some polls to ponder. Brace yourself.

Before he was elected president, Senator Barack Obama was ranked the most liberal member of a very liberal U.S. Senate by the non-partisan National Journal, which is famous for its rankings of members of Congress. In short, then, a decisive majority of Americans elected as president the most liberal major presidential candidate in the history of the republic. This was unprecedented.

To many of us, this suggested Americans had drifted to the left. It turns out they have not. Consider some other surveys:

For a long time now, thanks to the Reagan presidency, Americans have called themselves “conservative” rather than “liberal” by a roughly two-to-one margin. In 2000, the year George W. Bush was elected president, 18 percent of Americans said they were liberal vs. 36 percent who said they were conservative (38 percent opted for the moderate label). This has been consistent for quite a while. Generally, self-identified liberals have hovered around 20 percent, while conservatives have ranged in the upper-30 percent, sometimes above 40 percent.

Surely that must have changed in 2008, with the election of Obama.

No. In 2008, despite Obama winning the presidency, 21 percent of Americans said they were liberal vs. 38 percent who said they were conservative (36 percent chose moderate). Although both liberals and conservatives alike picked up small gains, the difference between 2000 and 2008 was virtually identical.

If that seems contradictory for a nation that voted for a man from the far left as president, well, that’s because it is. But that’s nothing compared to the inconsistencies in another poll:

A nationwide survey by Clarus Research Group asked American voters which president should be the model for Barack Obama in shaping his presidency. One would expect Americans to pick a liberal president – since, of course, Obama is a liberal. Perhaps FDR, LBJ or Jimmy Carter. Instead, the top choice was America’s most conservative president: Ronald Reagan.

How could that be? Answer: it cannot. It is impossible.

Barack Obama cannot model his presidency after that of Ronald Reagan. The two are irreconcilable. A large square cannot fit into a tiny circle. You cannot take a president who is a paragon of liberalism and one who was a paragon of conservatism and match them ideologically. That’s not fair to Obama. In fact, Obama would not want to do that, nor would his staff – nor would Ronald Reagan.

If that’s not bad enough, the contradictions get worse when you look at policy issues. Here’s one:

An October Marist poll found that only a sliver of Americans, 8 percent, favor allowing abortion at any reason at any stage of pregnancy. Well, those same Americans just elected a man who is seeking to remove any abortion restrictions whatsoever, including those agreed to by bipartisan legislatures all over America. Senator Obama had a 100 percent pro-choice rating from NARAL and a zero percent pro-life rating from National Right to Life.

That’s one policy issue. I could cite other divergent numbers on taxes and government spending, but I don’t want to send you running for a straightjacket.

Indeed, this is positively maddening. How can Americans believe red and vote blue?

It raises a troubling, indelicate question for both liberals and conservatives alike: Can we trust the American public to vote rationally? That may seem harsh, even condescending, but it is an inescapable consideration given the data.

The data is particularly a jolt to Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan frequently declared that you can always trust the American people to make the right decisions. Of course, that assumes a knowledgeable, well-informed public – educated by schools and media that are genuinely balanced in exposing a wide variety of points of view. It also assumes a citizenry that votes according to ideas or ideology.

Apparently, for many Americans, those things did not happen on November 4, 2008.

It also means that despite Obama’s sizable margin of victory, he did not get a mandate – certainly not a liberal mandate. The public, at best, gave him a mandate for some sort of “change,” but not a change to the left.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Believing Red But Voting Blue”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Newly elected Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem: Rav Shlomo Amar (L) and Rav Aryeh Stern (R).
2 New Chief Rabbis Elected for Jerusalem After 10-Yr Hiatus
Latest Indepth Stories
Noah and his Family; mixed media collage by Nathan Hilu. Courtesy Hebrew Union College Museum

Myth #1: It is easy to be a B’nai Noach. It is extraordinarily hard to be a B’nai Noach.

Sweden prefers to ignore its own problems and make trouble elsewhere.

The question of anti-Semitism in Europe today is truly tied to the issue of immigration.

256px-Israel-Palestine_flags.svg

Polls indicate that the Palestinians are much more against a two state solution than the Israelis.

Map of Syria-Turkish border area, pinpointing Kurdish border town of Kobani, just taken by ISIS terror forces Oct 7, 2014.

Turkey and Iran the 2 regional powers surrounding the ISIS conflict gain from a partial ISIS victory

Emigration from Israel is at an all-time low, far lower than immigration to Israel from Europe.

Leon Klinghoffer’s daughters: “‘Klinghoffer’ is justified as ‘a work of art’…This is an outrage.”

Do you seriously think that as you kidnap our children we should medically treat and help yours?

Sometimes collective action against the heinous acts of the majority is not enough. The world should not only support the blockade of Gaza; it must enforce the dismantling of Hamas.

The Arab Spring has challenged Jordan with the task of gradual reform with regard to its monarchy.

Israel offered Syria the entire Golan Heights, only to find that the Syrians were demanding MORE!

Israeli hasbara too can be described at best as pathetic, at worst non existent.

A ‘good news’ story from the Nepal avalanche disaster to warm your heart. Take out your Kleenex.

Journalists see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as morality play: Israel=evil; Palestine=innocent

Warsaw Ghetto: At its height, the Nazis walled in some 500,000 Jews within the1.3 square mile area.

While police officers face dangers every day on the job, Jews also face danger in their daily lives.

Carter developed a fondness for Arafat believing “they were both ordained to be peacemakers by God”

More Articles from Dr. Paul Kengor

In the 1980s, I was an unrefined adolescent from blue-collar Butler, Pennsylvania. I knew nothing and cared nothing about politics. I had no idea if I was a conservative or a liberal, Democrat or Republican, or much of anything else.

“In Bin Laden Announcement, Echoes of 2007 Obama Speech,” declared the headline in The New York Times.

It’s difficult to find a newspaper that has demonstrated a worse pro-Obama and anti-Bush bias than The New York Times, especially when dealing with the War on Terror.

Former president Jimmy Carter told NBC News last week that his work at home and abroad has been “superior” to other presidents.

“I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents,” Carter assessed. “Primarily because of [my] activism and the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and, to some degree, domestic affairs.”

The huge “9/12” protest in Washington was the latest expression of discontent over President Obama’s leftward policy thrust. The discord is evident from the Tea Party movement to the chaotic town halls on health care reform.

What if an American president, on his own initiative, under no demands from staff or from supporters or opponents, set out to spend an unprecedented amount of money on AIDS in Africa, literally billions of dollars, at a time when the nation could not afford it, citing his faith as a primary motivation and, ultimately, saved more than a million lives?

Every American, obviously, has heard of Ronald Reagan, and Reagan historians have heard of Bill Clark. Clark was Reagan’s close aide, who, more than any other, laid the foundation for Cold War victory.

What’s the state of the republic one month into the Obama presidency? It’s a state of deep confusion. Here are some polls to ponder. Brace yourself.

Five years ago, George W. Bush finished the last good year of his presidency.

Things were looking up. The Democratic front-runners seeking their party’s presidential nomination lauded the historic accomplishments in Iraq, particularly Saddam Hussein’s capture.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/believing-red-but-voting-blue/2009/02/18/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: