THE WEEKLY STANDARD: President Obama is under water in public opinion polls, judged more unfavorably than favorably. He now pops up in Republican campaign ads that link Democratic candidates to his unpopular administration. And a growing list of Democrats would rather he stay away while they are running for office this year.
He’s a political liability to his party. But that may not be the best way to rate Obama’s 19-month tenure in the White House. There’s a nonpartisan, nonideological measure that’s a bit subjective but still renders a valid verdict. Created by Fred Greenstein, professor of politics emeritus at Princeton, it uses six criteria to evaluate the performance of a president.
Greenstein has applied it to presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton—that is, presidents no longer in office. But it’s also fair to use the six criteria to test how a sitting president is doing. Here are the criteria as applied to Obama.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. This was Obama’s strength as a candidate, but it’s been a glaring weakness as president. He’s a good explainer but a poor persuader. He doesn’t inspire. He devoted dozens of speeches in 2009 to touting his health care plan, including a nationally televised address to Congress last September. Public support dwindled. The program passed only because of large Democratic majorities in Congress elected in 2008 and likely to disappear in the midterm election in November.
Because presidents can always command an audience, they’re tempted to appear in public too often. Ubiquity undermines the office. The public loses interest, and the effectiveness of the bully pulpit dissolves. Every president since Ronald Reagan has succumbed to this temptation, Obama especially. The worst example: He was interviewed on TV during the halftime of the Duke-Georgetown basketball game last winter. >>> Fred Barnes | Monday, August 16, 2010
