Political Climate: Worse Under GWB or Obama?

[Madison Redskin]

The thread regarding Senator Bayh's decision to step aside made me think about the political climate in which Obama is operating. I think things are pretty ugly. However, I'm not sure if the general tone of political discourse is better (i.e., civil), worse (i.e., uncivil and vitriolic), or is basically the same as the nature of discussions during GWB's Administration. Thoughts?

[Larry]

I think things are uglier, now.

'Course, it's all the other side's fault.

[Mickalino]

I think, the same rule applies to this, that applies to all the questions about whether Obama has done a good job yet - too early to tell

[daveakl]

I think it is uglier now, but not the fault of one party or the other. GWB was a polarizing president, the Democrats (Obama actually tried to be a unifier to an extent) ran a polarizing campaign at every other level last election.

I think it's more how the two party system has evolved to the state that if you are unhappy with the current power you vote for the other and the minority tries to exploit this.

[DRSmith]

What happens to any Republican who cosponsers bill with Dems or who would say something nice about Obama?

I am sure talk radio would pat them on the back.

[mjah]

I think the atmosphere was notably worse through most of W's second term due to its nature: in the eye of most of the public, he was directly blameworthy for some of the major problems we were going through. His approval ratings at the time are consistent with that memory.

Obama has plenty of time left to create his own problems, but so far he hasn't. If he does saddle us with brand-new major problems of his own making and the economy continues to take a big dump, then I think the atmosphere eventually will be no better than it was under W -- and rightfully so.

I liken much of today's situation to the utterly irrational far right anti-Clinton mania of the 1990s -- hatred fomented and rabidly wheeled out during two terms of almost unprecedented peace and prosperity. The far-right wharrgarbling will be the last thing many people remember about Clinton, but the moderate revolt against W will be remembered because it showed up in the numbers.

Jury's out on the moderates' take on Obama, as it's too early. Right now it seems that people in the middle are skeptical and concerned, but not turning their backs. I see that as a major difference between W and O, at least to date. Time will tell.

[Springfield]

I try to not pay too close attention to the political climate but I think that it was worse under GWB. It's probably because I hated him so much and most of America agreed.

[Larry]

I'll also say that even if neither Party changed a thing, the climatre would be worse right now, because the economy's worse, right now. And when people are angry about something, it makes them angrier about other things, too.

How much of Clinton's warm and fuzzies was due to his political skill or his moderate rhetoric, and how much was due to the economy?

[@DCGoldPants]

I think its worse....because it doesn't reset from one President to another. That doesn't mean it won't get worse or better. Just sayin'

[JimmyConway]

IMO it is worse now only because of the polarizing that took place during the W administration.

Not only have the issues taken a back seat, they're in the back of the bus.

The Tea Party was on the way to breaking up the bipartisanship until Sarah Palin made her six-figure appearance.

[Wrong Direction]

I'll also say that even if neither Party changed a thing, the climatre would be worse right now, because the economy's worse, right now. And when people are angry about something, it makes them angrier about other things, too.

How much of Clinton's warm and fuzzies was due to his political skill or his moderate rhetoric, and how much was due to the economy?

It's funny you mention Clinton.

I remember looking forward to either Bush or Gore because I wanted the poisonous political environment to stop. Most of his second term was hateful; investigations, sex, trials, and impeachment. That followed his first two years where people were so upset that the Republican revolution was ushered in at the mid term election.

I don't remember the details of Bush I as much, though the anti Iraq war vitriol was legit. I do know the rhetoric around nuclear weapons during Reagan was quite loud.

Before that was Carter. Nuff said.

Before that was really Nixon (Ford is a unique case). Nuff said.

Before that was Johnson. Vietnam anyone?

JFK had it very tough too.

In other words, I'm not convinced this climate is worse than Bush's. In fact, I'm not convinced it's nearly as bad as just about any president has faced.

It's simply a reflection of political life in Washington, flavored by a terrible economy and budget situation, and sprinkled with a smack talking president.

[Burgold]

It feels worse. I think that there's a neverending game of oneupsmanship. It feels like it started either with the witchhunt of Clinton/Whitewater or perhaps with the relatively benign "Read my lips..." stuff, but from Newt, to Delay, to Pelosi the leaders of Congress seemingly have been acting more and more vindictive and spoiled. It's getting to be kind of like the whole Israel/Palestine mess. At this point, I'm less concerned with who started it as who will be the first to act like a grown up.

Will it be a Republican who decides that it's time to foresake party unity for the sake of doing the country's work or will it be a Democrat who forsakes the cowardly powertrip the Dems are on to fight for more honest Republican inclusion.

Still, right now on the surface it's as cliquish and childish as it has been for a while and honestly they all need a bloody time out.

[daveakl]

OOOOOOOO, what about this:

It feels worse because the new cycle is so freaking fast due to the internet and blogs and such.

[stevenaa]

OOOOOOOO, what about this:

It feels worse because the new cycle is so freaking fast due to the internet and blogs and such.

I think there's a lot to this.

[Burgold]

OOOOOOOO, what about this:

It feels worse because the new cycle is so freaking fast due to the internet and blogs and such.

I think that's part of it. We're in a shock jock and shock blogger period where everyone is very loud and very angry about everything. It's really hard to have a conversation when everyone is yelling.

I mean whoever thought that the McClaughlin group would become a show of relative decorum and civility? That show used to be the height of everyone shouting over each other and now it feels relatively tame and reasonable.

[Larry]

It's funny you mention Clinton.

I remember looking forward to either Bush or Gore because I wanted the poisonous political environment to stop. Most of his second term was hateful; investigations, sex, trials, and impeachment. That followed his first two years where people were so upset that the Republican revolution was ushered in at the mid term election.

Valid point.

Now days, when I think of Clinton, I think of the economy. But you're right. Back then, it was The Neverending Investigation. The Impeachment with no crime, just so we could claim that the investigation wasn't a political publicity stunt.

After reading your post, I remember that the first priority of the newly-GOP-controlled Congress was to repeal Clinton's just-passed "anti-crime bill", the centerpiece of which was a federal program which was trumpeted as putting 100,000 cops on the streets. A measure which the voters resoundingly approved of. But which had to be immediately repealed, for the stated reason that there was an election only two years away, and when Clinton ran for re-election, they didn't want him to have a single accomplishment he could point to and say "Look what I did".

Don't know if this change in perspective is a demonstration of the mellowing of age, or is simply another example of W's ability to turn the Clinton administration into The Good Old Days.

[Madison Redskin]

I don't know whether things are better or worse inside the Beltway. Things were ugly under GWB and seem to be just as ugly under Obama. However, I think the Glenn Becks of the world are making things worse outside DC. The media, or perhaps the viewing audience, is rewarding polarizing and inflammatory simpletons.

[Chopper Dave]

The grass always looks greener with issues like this, but thinking about it as objectively as I can, which is hard, considering my views trend so sharply toward one side of the political spectrum, it's almost impossible to definitively say. The first part of the Bush years were some of the most politically united in history, but he pissed so many people off with what he did with that political goodwill that the second part was arguably the most toxic political climate in history. The current political climate under Obama carries over alot of that animosity, with the tables of power turned, and the message of hope pervasive. However, the Republicans are much more effective at grinding the gears of government to a halt when their opposition is in power, and that lack of governmental effectiveness creates a whole other level of toxicity in the political climate, negating any gains from the changeover.

So, basically, it's probably a wash.

[Wrong Direction]

The grass always looks greener with issues like this, but thinking about it as objectively as I can, which is hard, considering my views trend so sharply toward one side of the political spectrum, it's almost impossible to definitively say. The first part of the Bush years were some of the most politically united in history, but he pissed so many people off with what he did with that political goodwill that the second part was arguably the most toxic political climate in history. The current political climate under Obama carries over alot of that animosity, with the tables of power turned, and the message of hope pervasive. However, the Republicans are much more effective at grinding the gears of government to a halt when their opposition is in power, and that lack of governmental effectiveness creates a whole other level of toxicity in the political climate, negating any gains from the changeover.

So, basically, it's probably a wash.

Bush's first 6 months were riddled with charges that he was illegitimate and huge protests that he stole the election. There was a respite for a few months around 9/11, but that was never going to last.

[Chopper Dave]

Bush's first 6 months were riddled with charges that he was illegitimate and huge protests that he stole the election. There was a respite for a few months around 9/11, but that was never going to last.

Those protests were more right after the election and before his inauguration. I agree though, his reign was a complete and total cluster**** from every perspective; there's no way that respite could last.