President Obama took to the stump this week to respond to criticisms of his health care plan. But he now confronts an even deeper problem, one that threatens not only the success of Obamacare, but his presidency itself. Since the beginning of his term, Obama's personal popularity has exceeded that of his policies--a gap that was obviously unsustainable. Yet the final resolution remained unclear: Would his personality make his policies more popular, or would his policies drag down his personal likeability?
As the health care debate unfolds, we are seeing something we could not have predicted just weeks ago. President Obama's popularity is eroding--fast.
This week the Rasmussen poll of likely voters found the president's approval rating dipping below 50% for the first time. This is not only due to Obama's unpopular health reform program (although that may explain some of it). It is also because of the process he has used to push his signature initiative--a process that reeks of arrogance, deception and bullying.
This was unexpected: Even those who weren't crazy about the president's policies generally liked and respected the man. He seemed to be even-tempered, honest and somewhat earnest. He came across as reflective and open to debate, listening and persuasion.
This Obama has disappeared in the past few weeks while the health care debate has unfolded. Rather than open, he comes across as a sarcastic and lecturing professor. Rather than honest, he has seemed duplicitous and slick. Rather than careful and measured, his plan appeared rushed and extreme.
Voters were willing to forgive haste and sloppiness in ramming through a pork-laden economic stimulus bill that only loosely splattered on the target. To many, the financial crisis and rising unemployment justified a kitchen-sink approach. Sure, there would be waste, many voters acknowledged, but better to do too much than too little. After all, what was a few billion dollars when the economy itself seemed near collapse? Washington's urgency and inattention to the details of the legislation seemed appropriate leadership in a time of crisis. And most recognized that the Congress, not Obama, was to blame for the less appetizing ingredients in the stimulus crock pot.
These traits are less acceptable in the context of health care reform; this is a systemic, generational change, and it affects our health and medical care. Haste is irresponsible and reckless when the stakes are so high, and the need for urgency comparatively weak. The Rasmussen poll finds that a clear majority of Americans are more concerned that health reform be done right rather than enacting the hastily constructed proposal currently on the table.
The refrain of a health care system in "crisis" is not just overwrought, but obviously untrue for most Americans whose personal experience is of a health insurance system that works pretty well, albeit with some inconvenience, most of the time and provides state-of-the-art care, albeit inefficiently, almost all of the time. We are not creating a one-time obligation, but a fundamental entitlement that will be with us indefinitely.
Finally, the town hall confrontations across America have shown a political class that brazenly refuses to read--much less master--the details of the legislation, an irresponsible arrogance that was tolerated when it came to the stimulus legislation but which voters are much less willing to accept when there is no need for panic.
There is a growing perception of condescension surrounding the selling of the White House's health care plan. Common sense tells us the government cannot simultaneously expand coverage and reduce costs. The government cannot dramatically inflate demand for health care services and eliminate market mechanisms for allocating them without devising some way of rationing supply and demand through political means. To suggest otherwise, as the White House has, is not just misleading but insulting. And the American people don't like to have their intelligence insulted.
The phony sense of crisis, the inattention to the details and the transparent dishonesty of many of the claims have made voters question not only the program but the president. What does Obama have to hide? Why won't he level with us? The discovery that there are hidden, controversial provisions in the plan has sparked rumors about imaginary provisions. Denouncing the false concerns as "lies," as the White House has done, doesn't redeem the apparent effort to obfuscate certain details of the plan. And the now-abandoned request of loyalists to report "suspicious communications" to the White House did nothing to assuage voters' distrust.
It is this distrust, more than anything, that is eroding Obama's popularity. Voters no longer see him as a grown-up, straight-shooter and basically good guy who is trying to do his best, but as a political opportunist taking advantage of their charity and trust.
George W. Bush had a long way to fall after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when the American people trusted him to use his power responsibly to do what needed to be done to wage the war on terror. But he abused this mandate to justify policies that had little to do with keeping us safe. The American people eventually came to feel like they had been suckered by a president who took advantage of their goodwill, and they turned on him with a vengeance. Is Barack Obama in the same position, post-financial crisis?
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel famously announced his desire not to squander a good crisis. But Americans recognize that the health care system, while troubled, is not in crisis. Nor, as President Obama might soon discover the hard way, is global climate change a crisis for which voters will tolerate job-killing legislation enacted through slap-dash decision-making and irresponsible haste. Unless Obama quickly recognizes that voters know the difference between an authentic and inauthentic crisis, the success of his health care overhaul--and perhaps his presidency itself--is in jeopardy.
Todd J. Zywicki is a professor at George Mason University School of Law and a senior scholar at Mercatus Center.