Why Americans Are Anxious, Angry, and Scared

July 14, 2010 RSS Feed Print

You can feel it on the Hill, you can feel it within the White House, you can sense it in most households across the country. Anxiety, fear, anger.

The right track, wrong track numbers, as we define the general mood of the nation, are not good. Now, Americans believe by 62 to 29 we are off on the wrong track, not heading in the right direction. These are the worst numbers of the Obama presidency.

Of course, President Bush fared much worse, with only 12 percent believing we were headed in the right direction in October of 2008 and 78 percent feeling we were off on the wrong track.

President Obama’s job approval numbers are a bit higher than Bill Clinton’s in 1994 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1982. Both were dealing with recessions and Reagan was in the midst of 10 months of unemployment over 10 percent. In fact, in October of 1982 the number was 10.8 percent.

As we know, both Clinton and Reagan came roaring back, as did the economy.

[See 10 keys to an Obama comeback.]

So why are we so concerned this time? Where is that good old American optimism?

I have a theory. Well, two actually.

The first, is that we have a combination of wild swings in our political poll numbers that matches the wild swing in the stock market and the ups and downs with the economy. This is a double whammy for citizens--hope for rapid change brought on by an election, then continued gridlock and perception of continued problems one right after another--financial collapse, foreclosures, car companies on the brink, billions in bailouts, oil spills, two wars, terrorist attempts--what more is needed for a disaster movie!!??

The rapid changes in the stock market have added to the lack of confidence in our politics and our leaders. No one knows what to expect next; there is a lack of stability, certainty, and reliability.

That is toxic for incumbents in an election year.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on the 2010 campaigns.]

The second theory relates to the unusual situation where a vast majority of Americans blame the Republicans and the past administration for the problems we now face. Couple that with a serious lack of faith that Republicans have any answers or plans to help solve the problem. The tendency to vote against the Democrats right now because of the anger and the fear is somewhat offset by the lack of confidence in the Republicans. They are at their lowest level in 26 years according to a Washington Post poll that indicated only 20 percent identify as Republicans.

There is no Newt Gingrich offering up a Contract with America and the far right blowhards such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and Ingraham have hijacked the Republican Party, leading Independents to become increasingly skeptical.

So, although not a great deal will probably change when it comes to the overall mood of the country between now and November, the campaigns have yet to seriously start and Republicans have little to offer.

The bottom line is that this will unfold not just like 1982 when Reagan lost 26 House seats or 1994 when Clinton lost over 50 seats, but probably somewhere in-between.

Tags:
Sean Hannity,
Rush Limbaugh,
Ann Coulter,
Laura Ingraham,
2010 election,
Barack Obama,
Newt Gingrich,
Ronald Reagan,
Bill Clinton

Reader Comments Read all comments (18)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Nancy Pelosi's remark about Bush failing to warn Congress about the impending financial crisis is accurate. Hank Paulson writes about it in his memoirs. He recounts the discussion he had with Pelosi and the reason for his decisions afterward. Please, stick to facts and don't misconstrue statements, take them out of context or distort or misapply them.

The much touted "17 warnings to Congress" supposedly made by Bush weren't warnings about the impending financial collapse at all; it was the usual GOP whining about Fannie and Freddie that goes on regularly anyhow. There was no mention of private mortgage fraud, reduced lending standards and predatory lending practices by private mortgage lenders or corrupt ratings practices by rating agencies. Bush ignored all this.

F/F did purchase some subprime loans but this was not the cause of the financial meltdown in 2008. Here is a good synopsis of what actually occurred;

"In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Bloomberg's Report;

[F/F] said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ay0Kkt47a3s4

steve of IL 12:38PM July 16, 2010

Just disprove one. No, of course not. You can not. My links are bad and your links are gold standard.

That’s ok, you are building a army of Steve haters…

Bill Hedges of MO 12:54AM July 16, 2010

About Pelosi's comment;

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now claims that the Bush Administration prohibited its own top officials who were handling the emerging crisis from briefing Congress until a complete financial collapse was only hours away...Pelosi has alleged that the Bush administration knew well in advance of its intervention that the financial crisis would hit, and that Congress would need to authorize a historic and unpopular bailout – but that top officials, including then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, told her that they had been barred from briefing Congress about true extent of the crisis.

http://susiemadrak.com/?p=2183

Here's TPM;

It turns out that after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the Federal Reserve's giving the New York Fed permission to lend $85 billion to AIG, it was Pelosi who called Paulson to ask for a briefing the following morning.

"They said, 'That will be too late. That will be too late. Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock will be too late,'" Pelosi recalled.

In a meeting that evening with Congressional leaders and staff, Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and others offered a dire assessment, and made an appeal for intervention that ultimately resulted in TARP. Bernanke and Paulson beseeched the legislators to act quickly, warning that, the entire U.S. economy might collapse in days without rapid intervention. But Pelosi had a question. "I asked them, and said, 'Why am I calling you - why didn't you call me?," Pelosi said.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/9874/tpm-bush-administration-kept-congress-in-the-dark-before-2008-collapse

Here's a more detailed description of what transpired;

Pelosi offered no hints as to why the Bush administration would prohibit its top lieutenants from speaking up about the need for federal intervention. Among their concerns might have been sowing panic that would have added further strains to financial markets already close to the breaking point. But Pelosi’s comments suggest, though she declines to go farther, that election year politics played into the equation...Paulson notes that, hours prior to the meeting, Pelosi sought to include fiscal stimulus in any recapitalization plan, and that during the meeting, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank pushed to include pay restrictions for participating executives, but that he resisted both ideas.

Full story here;

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/pelosi-bush-admin-barred-officials-from-briefing-congress-on-impending-financial-crisis-in-fall-2008/

Treasury officials in the Bush administration had conceived of a contingency plan along the lines of the TARP bailout months before they actually called for one...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/pelosi-bush-administration-barred-officials-from-asking-congress-for-financial-sector-bailouts.php?ref=fpa

Obviously, Bush's motive was that he wanted to prevent congress from pursuing alternatives to the TARP plan favored by the big banks.

steve of IL 7:01PM July 15, 2010

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn is a Democratic political strategist and head of Fenn Communications, one of the nation's leading political and public affairs media firms. Fenn Communications has worked in over 300 campaigns, from presidential to mayoral, and has represented a number of Fortune 500 companies. Fenn is also an adjunct professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement