History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Let me make a prediction, I'll modestly call it the Marshall Maxim: When a sitting president falls to between 33 and 38% approval rating, a tipping point is reached at which time opponents will feel free to take aggressive action against the administration.
Part of the basis for my prediction is historical . The other part is whimsical: I used the inverse of phi as the upper limit of my maxim.
I wonder how long a sitting president can languish in the doldrums of the 30s (in approval ratings) before the American people--a people who believe that the doctrine of second chances is a birthright--move against him? [ed - original URLs hyperlinked for readability]
It sounds reasonable, but I think some additional definitional rigor is still needed. What do my Americanist colleagues think of this?
Update: Here is another, better grounded, attempt to make sense of"popularity" but because it doesn't really predict anything, it's not as interesting.
I think that it's not Fitgerald responding to the low popularity of Bush; it's other Republicans. We've seen open opposition to Miers, we've seen numerous speakers admitting publicly that the administration is incompetant, and that Bush is scum.
All of this, presumably, well-known to the DC insiders beforehand, but rarely brought out into public for our consumption.
Barry DeCicco -
10/25/2005
"His subsequent decline in the polls is, in part, attributable to the Democrat offensive."
I would agree, with the quibble that 'part' means 'a very small part', but there has been jack for a Democratic offensive, and lots of Bush screw-ups coming home to roost.
As for your history of the GOP, it leaves out the absoption of the Dixiecrats, Nixon's and Goldwater's Southern Strategy, Nixon's policy of polarization, and a lot of whole-hearted service to the rich and powerful who in return fund the campaigns.
Dale B. Light -
10/22/2005
Oh dear, Ralph, where to begin. Ever since its founding the Republican Party has been the party of national unity, promoting the political, economic, and cultural integration of the nation. The great exception was the Roosevelt years, when a Democrat rallied the nation to face depression and a foreign foe. Since then the pattern is clear. Democrats do well in state and local elections running on local issues, and as a result for most of the past half century have dominated Congress and the statehouses. But on the national level their performance has been miserable. Only two Democrat candidates for President since 1950 have received 50% of the popular vote [both unusual situations -- 1964 after JFK's assassination, and 1976, after Watergate]. During that same time Republicans have topped 50% seven times. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 came when Gingrich successfully "nationalized" the off-year elections with his "Contract With America." So laugh all you want -- a strategy of running on national themes will not serve the Democrats well. Their best chance lies with a Republican crack-up.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2005
He would have been impeached had he not resigned. He was told that by senior Republicans. Had he been impeached, he would have been found guilty in the Senate.
Sergio Ramirez -
10/21/2005
I honestly have never been clear on it. Was it really the threat of impeachment that caused Nixon's resignation, or was the general scandal of his administration taking its toll?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2005
Oh, I would say that the impeachment effort against Richard Nixon was pretty successful.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2005
That's odd. It worked for me.
Sergio Ramirez -
10/21/2005
Thanks, as I expected, the answer, to my question about when Americans have moved against a President, is twice in our history, and never with clear success.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/21/2005
I've fixed the link (minor punctuation error).
Ralph E. Luker -
10/21/2005
Did you click on the link?
Sergio Ramirez -
10/21/2005
?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/20/2005
Whatever the value of your other points, the notion that Republicans "own" the national issues has become laughable, Dale. Homeland defense -- after Katrina? Are you kidding? The budget? You've got to be kidding? Iraq? What other mad ventures does the administration have in store for other people's sons and daughters? What other bottomless drains on our economy?
Dale B. Light -
10/20/2005
I agree, governing by popularity polls is a bad idea. So is desiging political strategies. The Democrats, after three disappointing elections in a row, adopted an extremely aggressive focusing on Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership. At the time this decision was taken Bush still had comparatively high approval ratings and had just won re-election. His subsequent decline in the polls is, in part, attributable to the Democrat offensive. I personally think this is not a winning strategy for the Democrats. Bush is not running for anything and attempts to "nationalize" the off-year elections [a la Gingrich in 1994] by turning them into a referendum on him are bound to be counter-productive. Tip O'Neill was right. For Democrats all politics is local. Republicans own the national issues and "nationalizing" the election plays to their strength. Democrats do best when they play coalition games, targeting specific groups with specific appeals.
Jonathan Dresner -
10/20/2005
There is a "chicken and egg" problem in the use of popularity polls: often it is the problems which lead to "aggressive action" which eroded the popularity in the first place.
I don't think Marshall is in any way proposing that presidents should be removed at a certain threshold, only that the probability of effective attempts to remove them increases dramatically as you approach the 1/3 popularity range.
I think I've used up my italics quota for the night....
Ralph E. Luker -
10/20/2005
Sergio, It's easy enough to look it up here, for example. The judges, generally, are appointed rather than elected officials. Impeachment is not conviction, but it often leads to a resignation rather than a trial and it occurs on both the federal and the state levels.
Sergio Ramirez -
10/20/2005
What are some historical examples of the American people moving against an elected President?
Robert KC Johnson -
10/20/2005
Agreed. Moreover, Republicans felt free to take "aggressive action" against Clinton even when his approval ratings were high.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/19/2005
This is a bad idea, isn't it? We don't elect a person to office for as long as she or he is popular, so you can forget about the popularity polls. Governor Robert Taft of Ohio has approval ratings below 20% and he's not been removed. We elect officeholders to a term of years and, short of high crimes and misdemeanors, they can expect to fill out their term of office. You name palpable high crimes and misdemeanors and then we'll see if the Democrats have the courage to file official charges.
