2006 April 26 Wednesday
Bush Approval Rating Drops Below Carter

With Bush's approval rating plummeting to new lows with Fox (which is the most pro-Bush news network in Americ) putting Bush at 33% approval and CNN reporting at 32% I became curious about how his approval rating compares to other modern era US Presidents. Carter left office with a 34% approval rating and Nixon resigned wiith a 24% approval rating. So Bush is now less popular than Carter was when he left office. See the chart at that link. LBJ left office with 49% approval and the rest of the modern presidents starting with Eisenhower and later left office with more than half the populace approving.

Curiously, Clinton comes in at the top at 65% and Reagan at 64% comes in second place after him. The dot com bubble of the late 90s combined with fairly cheap oil had people feeling happy in spite of the scandals and the impeachment. Bush is dogged by Iraq, expensive gasoline, a middle class feeling more pressured by debt and job fears due to globalization, and his own dogged insistence on alienating his Republican base and quite a few others on immigration.

My question: Can Bush descend all the way down to Nixon levels of approval? I figure he has a chance of getting there for a few reasons:

  • People are unhappy with high gasoline prices and those prices will rise even higher in the summer of 2006. At $3.50 per gallon of gasoline people are going to be quite unhappy. Even higher prices are reachable with, say, a bigger rebellion in Nigeria or a bomb in a Saudi refinery or perhaps another Gulf coast hurricane in the fall of 2006.
  • Bush might eventually launch an attack on Iran that will drive oil and gas prices much higher.
  • The high energy prices could push the US economy into a recession and people go even more negative on Presidents when they are in fear of losing their jobs during recessions.
  • Bush is alienating his Republican base and some other elements of the electorate on immigration.
  • The news from Iraq looks to stay bad and even worsen as the ethnic cleansing progresses.

Bush only needs to drop another 8 or 9 points to get down to the level reached by Richard Milhouse Nixon when he resigned. Can Bush achieve such a low level of approval and such a high level of disapproval? I figure he's up to the task. What do you think?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 26 06:38 PM  Politics American Presidency


Comments
SuperDuperDave said at April 26, 2006 9:27 PM:

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush plummeting lower and lower with each new poll. What staggers me most, is just how much Bush's policies are damaging the economic welfare of working-class and middle-class white Americans. He is vigorously in favor of outsourcing, by far one of the dumbest economic policies in recent decades. It's damaging the formerly world-leading US professional techical class so much, that even fewer students in high school and college want to focus on technical, science and engineering fields. His focus on the war in Iraq and his obsession with insanely moronic and useless defense spending on malfunctioning billion-dollar warplanes and nukes, are draining away enormous amounts of money that could be better invested in human capital and civilian innovation. Then there's the amnesty push... little intro needed there.

To be fair, it's not just Bush who's basically proclaimed war against the white working class and the middle/professional classes here-- the proto-Marxists among the liberals here (most of them themselves white) have been doing that too. As noted earlier, white professionals and blue-collar/service workers are fleeing California in droves. I left the place myself a while ago (for Oregon), and there's a mass white exodus from that state and from the SW in general. Mass immigration from the third world, racial preferences (Prop. 209 has collapsed and is not enforced in California), and all kinds of other policies add up to a very hostile climate for whites there.

In fact, what stands out for me most about California, is how that state's policies so intensely parasitize its productive (usually white) residents. It boggles the mind. One example that hasn't really been brought up here yet, are the divorce laws there. One of my old friends worked 80-hour weeks for almost a decade to become a wealthy executive in a young start-up company, pulling down six figures. His wife was a well-educated lawyer, though didn't work many hours and didn't earn much money. They had one child, for whom they both cared (and he hired an au pair using his own funds). After a couple years though, she basically got lazy, began missing many days of work, staying home, eating ice cream and watching Oprah all damn day. Well, turns out that one of the Oprah shows was apparently about how women should free themselves from oppressive husbands. Her husband had been getting frustrated by her newfound habits and lack of drive and they'd come into conflict. So she, obviously a very unproductive member of the couple, decided to file for divorce. Based on the California laws, she got half of the property and half of her husband's assets that he'd worked so hard for and essentially secured (through his education and years of dues-paying) well before he'd even met her. She was a lousy parent but she got their daughter and he had to pay through the nose for child support. It wound up being effectively far more than half his assets. He was devastated, and with some problems at his company later, he came close to declaring bankruptcy. How idiotic a system is this? In analogy to other California policies, the divorce laws effectively parasitize the productive spouse and take what they've earned through hard work, transferring them to a far less productive member, without a hint of sensible regard for what the more productive member had to invest (in terms of education and hard work) into his career.

In the old days (and still in many states), when a divorce unfortunately came about, there was at least an attempt at a sensible calculation of true economic contributions and productivity of each member in a couple. The most productive spouse (usually the husband) would be fairly recognized for the years of education and training he'd invested, and the difficulty of his work on the job. The other member of the couple (the wife, usually) would be fairly recognized for economic contributions in e.g. raising kids and doing housework in addition to her own job. But there was no illusion that the more productive member's career in, e.g., electrical engineering was "equally performed" by both members of the couple. The husband's heavy investment of education and time in his career, productive for the couple and the country in general, would be factored into calculations, and the divorcing wife would receive a respectable though not exorbitant fraction of the wealthy husband's assets (somewhere on the range of 20-25%), enough to have a good headstart but would usually go to work herself. Now, the way things are set up, a husband's heavily specialized and economically valuable work of e.g. starting a software company or running the electrical systems at a plant, is ridiculously equated to the "work" of an unproductive wife sitting on her ass at home and watching TV all day. It's an incredibly stupid, unrealistic economic calculation. '

Besides angering and driving out productive whites, these divorce laws also have the very nasty effect of sharply reducing already low white fertility even further, while raising it for black and Latino groups. Young, productive white men see marriage and childbearing in California as a foolish and even hazardous economic prospect. By comparison, many black children are born out of wedlock and to teen mothers where the usual controls of marriage don't apply anyway, and Latinos still adhere to such a traditional family structure (common among non-professionals) that the divorce laws don't really apply much to them. California's white birth rate is now somewhere around 1.2-1.3 at most, while the black and Latino rates are well above 2. IOW, California as a white, Anglo state is disappearing for good. When you so intensely parasitize your produtive citizens, as with California's divorce laws, you lose your productive citizens.

I might add that Britain is doing something similar with its divorce laws on a national scale, with devastating effects. The UK's laws are so harsh that a productive husband must not only fork over more than half his assets at the time of divorce, but over half of future assets. It's bad enough for reasonably wealthy spouses (such as the British soccer player in whose case this idiotic policy materialized), but it's bankrupting for whites in the working classes. The result? The white birthrate in the UK has plunged to dangerously low levels (maybe 1.2), while the birthrate for nonwhites in Britain and especially Muslims, with more traditional family approaches, stays very high (masking the overall crisis by artificially raising the TFR). The UK has other pro-multicultural, affirmative action policies that are incredibly harmful to the economic prospects of working-class and professional whites, such that white emigration from Britain is incredibly high. I've been to Europe on many business trips lately, and I've been shocked at the incredibly high numbers of Britons who've permanently emigrated and left for countries like Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Austria and France-- basically adopting their new country's culture and leaving behind their former identity as Britons. In fact, the UK is now facing a perfect demographic storm, with e.g. its divorce laws sharply discouraging native white marriage and fertility, mass immigration of high-fertility third world immigrants displacing native whites, and tens of thousands (possibly already over 100,000) whites permanently emigrating every year out of frustration.

This is a painful process but I feel necessary to teach an essential lesson-- you can't parasitize your most productive people and adopt anti-white policies without suffering in the process. US states like California and others in the SW, and Britain in general, are going to be suffering economic collapse as their white professionals desert in droves. But frankly, this is well-deserved punishment to those governments for adopting such foolish policies.

Jorge D.C. said at April 27, 2006 12:28 AM:

Can Bush achieve such a low level of approval and such a high level of disapproval?

I am no friend of GWBush. But the way politics works in our system - I'd look for his numbers to be way up at this time next year or 1.5 years from now at the end of his term. Not further down.

I'm not familiar with the timeline of Jimmy Carter's unpopularity (if it stayed low for years or just dipped). But I knew when Bush won in 2004 that he'd never hold the momentum. That's how it works.

Clinton had the high ratings at the end of his term not only because of the bubble but because the republicans overplayed their hand with the impeachment etc.

Look for the democrats to win the House in November and then immediately overplay their hand.

Jorge D.C. said at April 27, 2006 12:54 AM:

SuperDuperDave said:

Young, productive white men see marriage and childbearing in California as a foolish and even hazardous economic prospect.

We are off the thread topic but you raise an important point. Here are my comments:

So in other words matriarchy is in full effect.

Britain is doing something similar with its divorce laws on a national scale, with devastating effects. The UK's laws are so harsh that a productive husband must not only fork over more than half his assets at the time of divorce, but over half of future assets.

What you are describing is matriarchy. Obviously in the USA we've been slouching toward matriarchy for decades. Everyone understands that politics is a zero-sum game. Therefore when women are empowered it comes at a direct cost to men.

In America, the matriarchal process is advanced. Check out the college attendance rates by gender. Check out Steve Sailer's postings on the feminization of standardized testing and the classroom in general. Males are being pathologized by the marxists in the education business.

On a societal level the equation is scary and simple: matriarchy = suicide.

ALL matriarchies are consumed by rival patriarchies. The evidence for this dynamic is the entire historical record of civilization.

Any society that allows its males to be disenfranchised will be passed by - by rival societies propelled by male leadership.

Female leadership is a chimera. The female-led society will be outperformed by male-led society and the female society will be consumed.

One could argue that a significant contributing factor in the USA's inability to enforce its borders is that the country is halfway toward matriarchy. The female perspective is not oriented toward enforcing the laws.

As mental exercise consider how many current politicians could never be elected today if only males had the vote. Then consider the situation if only white males had the vote. Then consider if only land-holding white males had the vote as was the case 200 years ago.

It's easy to see how the historical trend in the USA (and the West in general) is against the Rightists - builders of nations - and for the Leftists who are the destroyers of nations.

Miriam said at April 27, 2006 1:56 AM:

Hey guys not all women like what's hapening to men in this country. I'm a woman, yet I'm so sick of feminists complaining that I've become something of a misogynist myself. I wish men were men and not some wimpy neutered shell that they've become. Personally, I value tough law and border policies, especially with respect to legal and illegal Third World immigration. It's clear to me that the elites want the full scale genocide of Whites world wide. Can't you please take back this country men?

Ned said at April 27, 2006 7:42 AM:

Remember that the per capita GDP in Mexico is only about one-fourth that of the US (CIA World Factbook), so, in fact, these numbers look even more outrageous.

D Flinchum said at April 28, 2006 1:56 PM:

I'll skip the matriarchy-patriarchy argument and go to education: Back about 25-30 years ago CA had some of the best public schools in the nation - usually in the top 2 or 3 in the US. Now their public schools (I mean K-12, not universities) are around the bottom, say 46th, where Alabama and Mississippi usually appear. That's a long way to fall in a relatively short time.

Randall Parker said at April 28, 2006 4:38 PM:

D Flinchum,

You have any good URLs on the decline of California public schools in rankings of states? I'd like to do a post on it.

D Flinchum said at April 29, 2006 2:33 PM:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters51f8
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research2fdc
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research438f
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/
http://www.vdare.com/pb/051026_windsor_speech.htm
http://www.vdare.com/pb/tanton_excerpt.htm


All are good articles on CA education and education in general and are worth 45 minutes to an hour or so of your time to read. Joe Guzzardi at VDare is a great source - he has taught ESL in CA for years. Contact him (you can find him at VDare). None of these show exact rankings, however. I found the 46th ranking in something I read and was stunned - CA was the "gold standard" of education in my teens, twenties, and thirties, just as Alabama & Mississippi were the absolute bottom. I read a lot - electronically and paper - and unfortunately I don't have that source. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding it - I probably do fewer electronic searches than you do.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright