Gallup has an interesting finding on confidence in Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. It seems that perceptions of this ostensibly nonpartisan official depend heavily on which President he happens to be working for.
Percent Expressing Great Deal/Fair Amount of Confidence in Ben Bernanke:
Democrats Independents RepublicansNote that the partisan split in perceptions of Bernanke have almost exactly reversed themselves. Last year, 61 percent of Republicans but 40 percent of Democrats had confidence in his performance; this year, those numbers are 64 percent and 36 percent, respectively.
2008 40 43 61
2009 64 44 36
38 comments
What better showing of the partisan nature of the debate in this country.
Bernanke gets it BTW, his buying of mortgages is one of the few things for the consumer in all this stimulus...and the consumer IS our economy.
Alternate hypothesis: In early 2008, Bernanke appeared to be a free-market conventional Fed Chairman, and so was disliked by interventionist Democrats. Since then, he has aggressively interfered in the economy, making him beloved by democrats but disliked by free-market Republicans.
I am not saying that this is correct, but it is a possibility.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/04/vote-on-where-we-poll.html
Vote to see which poll PPP conducts next...
P.S. vote Colorado which hasn't been polled in forever!
I think that the biggest lesson from those numbers is that many people don't have any idea what the Federal Reserve Chairman is, and so they assume that if he is part of the current government, then he must have similar views to our current president.
Derek, I voted Colorado because the other two seemed stupid to poll.
Mike, until your comment I've been making that very error myself! You may have hit the nail on the head there.
I agree with GoodBen, you may have missed something in the explanation there. It's just as likely that their perceptions have changed based on the actions taken rather than just who's sitting in the White House. (Of course, the two are linked to some degree, so it may matter WHEN the polling was taken in 2008 and what steps had been taken to-date.)
Not saying the partisan feelings aren't part of it, just that alternative explanations may have a notable effect as well.
I would not believe that enough people actually knew enough about what Bernanke to make that 40% flip.
Guilt by association (with Obama or Bush) probably has as much explanation as the shift in policy.
It seems to be that Bernanke's approval rating would be less tied to his actual performance and more tied to the perception of the strength of the economy. I think it would be better to interpret these results by overlaying this with an opinion poll on the confidence in the economy. I assume that Democrats are feeling the most confident about the economy and the Republicans are more bearish, which I bet is the reversed perceptions from last year.
That's interesting, and I'd love to see a similar poll on voter perceptions relating to executive authority, invocation of state secrets, and the like. Under Bush liberals and progressives were (rightfully) extremely critical of secrecy and lack of transparency in the federal government (relating to NSA spying, discussions of torture and extraordinary rendition, etc.).
But now, unfortunately and as is being widely discussed, Obama and his team are invoking some of the same Bush-era some-government-stuff-needs-to-be-secret/the executive has a ton of authority argument when it suits their purposes (trying to stifle a case on NSA wiretapping, invoking their authority to do as they please at Bagram in Afghanistan, etc.).
I think there's already evidence of a disturbing tendency among a lot of Obama supporters (at least on the net) to invoke the same "trust him, he knows what he's doing, he's seeing the secret intel data and you aren't" argument that was so maligned by liberals during the Bush administration.
If and when some polling data comes out on these type of questions I'd love to see a similar breakdown as you've done for polling on the Fed chair. The flip-flop will probably not be as intense as it seems to be for Bernanke, but if anything it would be even more dramatic (and troubling) evidence of how partisanship can triumph over principle for many American voters.
As someone who would have identified as "Democrat" for the poll, my opinion on Bernanke has certainly improved over the last year or so. Initially, I disliked him because I'd had such a positive opinion of Greenspan, and then Bernanke took over, and then everything went to hell. But as I watched what was going on with this collapse, Bernanke's really improved in my view (and Greenspan has lost most of my positive feelings).
On the executive powers question that Geoff Johnson proposes, I'll say this much: I'm willing to trust Obama...for now. Some of this stuff has been coming out, but slowly. So I'm willing to give him a little more time to see if these secrets are going to be largely released, or if he's going to try to keep them under wraps. If it's the latter, I'll be more unhappy than I was with Bush on the topic.
Nate, could you add a little more context by providing a link to the 2008 survey, or if not possible, at least the dates it was in the field? Thank you.
I have to agree with Mike's hypothesis. If only there was polling data asking the American public "To which political party does current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke belong?".
Well, I'm a Democrat who would have moved the other way. At the beginning of his term I tended to look at him as an improvement over 'bubbles' greenspan. Over the period of the crisis while the media has focused on the relatively transparent workings of the executive and legislative branch the fed has multiplied its holdings many times over taking many toxic assets as collateral working as a black box keeping wall street banking alive. I don't know whats in it but this lack of knowledge makes me scared as shit that the Fed is hiding an econ bomb somewhere on its balance sheet. So now I'd disaprove.
Clarissa-
Couldn' disagree more strongly. The only one who gets it on Obama's team is Bernanke. Summers should quit for taking Merrill speaking fees in October, Geithner is Wall Street's follower, and Voelcker has been completely marginalized.
Bernanke has kept the consumer spending moving via buying mortgage, car and other loans. Without him this is much worse right now.
Breaking: Judges rule against Coleman challenge in Senate recount contest: http://minnpo.st/l23122595
GoodBen and Mike both make smart points, and I think the answer is somehow a combination of the two, even though they are saying different things. As Mike points out, people probably assume Bernanke is somehow tied to whatever government is in power, even though he's theoretically not biased. This could explain why Republicans were in favor of him and Democrats were against him before Obama. However, as GoodBen points out, it's not just the president who has changed recently; perhaps coincidentally, with Obama's arrival, the Fed has become far more interventionist than it was before. On top of that, Bernanke's actions are much more publicized this year than previously, so more people know what he's up to. And since Republicans are generally against inflation (and the bailout in general), it makes sense for them now to be against Bernanke, even if they weren't before. However, it's likely that some of their perception is colored by the fact that the president is now Obama. Either way, I think Nate's interpretation of this study is a little too broad. We all need to pay more attention to the little details, ala "the power of small."
Bernake? Can he be any worse than Greenspan?
"Greenspan: Well, remember that what an ideology is. It's a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to. To exist you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I'm saying to you is 'yes, I have found a flaw.' I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.....A flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works,True, but once our ideology has been proven faulty, the thing to do is to ditch that ideology and replace it with something that brings the model more in line with reality. People don't act in their own self-interests, which is why there are drug addicts, alcoholics, compulsive gamblers and morbidly obese people. To suggest that the market needs little to no regulation, and to stoke the fires of greed and avarice on the belief that it won't overheat because people will not destroy themselves through over-indulgence is nuts.
Hopefully Bernake sees this and will apply the breaks before the economy runs off the edge of a cliff.
Oh, I agree that Bernanke has taken several steps that I agree and disagree with but part of it seems that since Bear Stearns he has been silently doing so many things in near silence that it offends me as a small d democrat to have so much power vested in this man. Maybe its the institution. No great love for Summers or Geithner. Still marginally better than bubbles Greenspan.
A while back, someone accused me of being scared of Governor Sarah Palin. I just want to said that Mrs. Palin is scary at times. I personally don’t want a president who reads “all of them” when it comes to newspaper, who did not know what the vice president’s job was (she actually thought that she was going to go into the senate and work on laws with Harry Reid), and who wants to legislate “family values” on the rest of Americans while failing to installed a good sets of values for her family. Read this article, where Joe Biden and Sarah Palin is being interview by Katie Couric. You tell me who you are more scared of:
Joe Biden on Roe vs. Wade:
It's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried…
I think the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment … offers a right to privacy. Now that's one of the big debates that I have with my conservative scholar friends, that they say, you know, unless a right is enumerated - unless it's actually, unless [it] uses the word "privacy" in the Constitution - then no such "constitutional right" exists. Well, I think people have an inherent right.
On a Supreme Court decision that he disagree with:
I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce. Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
This is what Sarah said:
I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America...
Katie asked her if she believes in a right to privacy, she said yes she does, contradicting herself
This is what her thought is on Supreme Court decision she disagree with
Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
I certainly think that the right wing is more partisan then the left. If you disagreement with Sarah, Fox News, Saint Bush II, then you hate america, you are scared et al.
Geoff Johnson said...
. . . unfortunately and as is being widely discussed, Obama and his team are invoking some of the same Bush-era some-government-stuff-needs-to-be-secret/the executive has a ton of authority argument when it suits their purposes (trying to stifle a case on NSA wiretapping, invoking their authority to do as they please at Bagram in Afghanistan, etc.).I'm not stating this is the case, just a perception of mine, but the Obama administration's arguments on the wiretapping, invocation of other authorities, etc., seem to be just a bit over the top.
Could it be that they are pushing all the little shrub arguments into the case, publicly backing little shrub's arguments, but by doing it in such a way that the courts will be forced to overturn those arguments? That way, Obama can state "the courts forced me", but in reality it's what he wanted the courts to do?
Again, I'm not stating this is the case, just a perception of mine. Considering that President Obama is NOT a country bumpkin when it comes to law and Constitutional law, when I first heard the positions he was taking, I did a 'WTF?'. But the more I thought about the situation, the positions seemed to be at odds with what he's previously stated, and that caused me to ponder why he was taking the positions that have been set out.
Remember, a lot of the NSA, CIA, and other 'spook' agency personnel, especially many of those who are career (vs. political appointee) and near, but not at the top of the agencies, are holdovers from the little shrub administration - they got their starts in the Ray-gun and Bush I administrations, then worked their way up the ladder to be in the positions they're in today. And don't forget the political appointees who buried themselves into career positions during the latter half of 2008. Many of these people would do anything and everything they could to make sure Obama doesn't overturn the little shrub policies.
If the courts overturn the Obama arguments, he can tell the spooks "The courts have ordered it, and I will follow the court orders."
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I can tell you this much....
I have no freakin' idea what Bernanke is up to. And I consider myself very up-to-date on what's going in Washington. He doesn't seem to say what he's doing.
At this point, I think our currency is hanging by a thread. We are very close to hyperinflation and being unable to run our country because the deficit is so high and with hyperinflation nobody will want to buy our bonds.
So I have two choices here. I can either panic, use what little money I have to buy gold or something else that will have value, and live in a bunker for the next few years and pray there's still a country left when I come out. Or I can trust Bernanke to know what he's doing and as close as we skirt the edge of the cliff the dollar won't fall off of it.
I wouldn't exactly say I have a great deal of confidence in Bernanke.
I'd say it's more of a great deal of faith.
Because really, what else can I do?
Matthew H said...
Because really, what else can I do?What else can you do? Start by ditching the Faux News watching, reading the misinformation at Freeperland, etc., etc.
Who besides the above sources state that we are perilously close to hyperinflation? Do you even know what hyperinflation is? Based on the male bovine droppings in your post, I seriously doubt it.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@ Mike in Maryland:
I'd like to believe that theory and certainly can't deny that it's possible, but it strikes me as a bit too clever-by-half, even for the very clever Obama team.
Certainly there are a bunch of quite conservative people left in the active intelligence community who didn't at all like Obama's campaign rhetoric, but I don't think they could do much to, for example, force the Obama admin to argue that prisoners in Bagram (those who were not seized in combat in Afghanistan) have no right to appeal their detention (which is obviously what Obama is arguing right now). That strikes me as the kind of decision that Obama and his top national security people are making completely of their own accord, and if they wanted to allow those kind of appeals they simply would. I doubt there's all that much that CIA careerists opposed to such a thing could do to stop them if Obama was truly committed to rolling back the Bush-era line of reasoning about these issues (there's also a bunch of intel community careerists who would be fine with such a rollback).
I think what's more likely in terms of a it's-not-as-bad-as-it-seems argument relates more basically to straight-up politics. By keeping Bush-era type executive authority in play for the war on terror, the Obamaites cover their right flank on national security issues which is a real weak spot for them right now (they've even drawn some praise from crazy-ass Ann Coulter for these kind of decisions...yikes).
But then, one might speculate, they can go on to not abuse that authority the way Bush did - e.g. if there are people at Bagram who do not deserve to be there Obama will let them go without being told to do so by a court. Basically Obama and his national security team might trust themselves (and implicitly ask their liberal and civil liberties-loving supporters to trust them) to not abuse extra-constitutional authority because they feel that it's worthwhile to continue to invoke it as a matter of political expediency.
If that's what's going on it's a little bit better than saying, "fuckit, I can do what I want" as Bush did, but the principle is extremely important here, and I for one do not trust Obama or any other president to avoid abusing that kind of authority even if their best intentions are to the contrary.
More importantly, if Obama continues to publicly invoke "state secrets" at every turn it continues the Bush era precedent without challenge (stopping that precedent is a huge part of why I and many others voted for him). The next person who takes office might not be as much to the liking of progressives as Obama is, and could thus engage in the kind of serial abuses that the Bushies did.
This is all obviously highly conjectural though - we just don't have any inside dirt on these deliberations as yet, though we'll probably know a lot more within the next 6 months or year as stuff starts to leak out.
Oh and something something something Ben Bernanke, just to get us back on topic.
Nate, what makes you think the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is working for the current President, or any? He works for a consortium of huge private banks that is independent of and only limited to a degree (I'd say, a very slight degree) by the Federal government. So if you really think he was working for GW before and is working for Obama now, does that mean you're one of the majority of Americans who doesn't understand what he's doing? Or did you just write your post too quickly, and without deliberating about your phrasing? I don't mean to be annoying; the distinction is very important. I agree that a majority of the public think the Fed is part of government, and therefore, a creature of whatever party is in power. But it isn't, and you know better.
The result has everything to do with party of the President. Every Fed Chair during the past 30 years (all three of them) has done exactly what he and his committee colleagues wanted to do whatever the economic/political atmosphere because, when it comes right down to it, for most of those 30 years, fiscal policy has been a joke and the politicians responsible for it, all of them at one time or another, have been more than happy to posture and play silly games to get votes while the "fourth branch" minded the books.
Yeah, frankly, I'm with GoodBen up top. The simplest explanation for why partisan perception of Ben Bernanke has changed in the last year is that Ben Bernanke has done a lot of stuff in the last year, and that stuff has mostly been interventionist. That's the Occam's Razor explanation. I'd be delighted to learn that I'm wrong, because Nate's explanation is much cooler and more thought-provoking, but without further evidence this is just correlation=causation.
Franken Won, Says ECC:
http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx?ArticleId=261&ArticleName=Franken+Wins%2c+Rules+ECC
Woo-hoo!!Now let's see how long the GOP (aka Crybabies Incorporated) keep beating this dead horse. I'll bet all the way to the Supreme Court.
@ loner:
That's simply not true. If you read any of the many biographies/memoirs of former federal reserve chairmen (Bob Woodward's Maestro comes to mind) you would learn a lot about the fed, how truly independent they are and how unwilling to take instructions or even APPEAR to take instructions from the executive they have been.
Nah, I don't think the Franken case will go all the way to the federal Supreme Court, just the Minnesota one. The Minnesota Supreme Court will rule for Franken and I think at that point the pressure within the state will be too intense and Gov. Pawlenty will have to sign the election certificate (the Court might also order him to do that, which Pawlenty would love as it will get him off the hook with the GOP if he signs it). Folks in Minnesota (I'm from there and know a bunch of people but don't live there anymore) are getting rather sick of this and I think most will see a state Supreme Court ruling as the logical endpoint.
If Republicans believed the federal courts might actually reverse the outcome they would no doubt carry on once Franken is certified, but they don't think that so they won't. These appeals are obviously just a way of stalling so the Dems only have 58 in the Senate. That will stop once Franken gets the election certificate, and right now I'd put my my money on that happening shortly after the Minnesota Supreme Court deals with Coleman's appeal.
Mighty—
Isn't that what I wrote?
Mike,
Seriously, how old are you, six?
I didn't get my information from "Faux News", which I don't watch. I got it from Krugman and others. If you don't understand what would happen if people don't buy our new bonds due to fear of inflation, and what that would do to our country, read a book. Random insults aren't going to get you educated.
Matthew H,
read calculated Risk.
Bernanke has been remarkably upfront about running the printing presses.
That said, Republicans who own stocks may be expressing confidence based on "Bernanke makes my stocks go up by cutting rates!" v.s. "stocks dead, still dying. hate bernanke who caused this somehow"
Anyone who couldn't tell that Bernanke was an Obama fan before the election wasn't listening.
I agree that Bernanke gets "it" and that Geithner and Summers need To Go Now.
Obama's fiscal policy is ... really distressing.
Not the running of the printing presses -- rather have inflation or hyperinflation than deflation, thanks kindly.
But the naked handouts to the banks -- that's pure crap. (latest AIG handouts to Goldmann for instance)
I wonder if a similar phenomenon might be found when comparing approval ratings for Secretary of Defense Gates. The situation isn't identical, but very similar; a public official serving in both Republican and Democratic Administrations (in the tradition of folks like Norm Minetta and David Gergen). If the same effect was found it would support the conclusion.
Matthew,
I just went to Google News, searched for 'hyperinflation', and ignoring the hits about hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, the majority of sites pushing the story line that the US will have hyperinflation is right-leaning or out and out right-wing sites.
A few sites that are not pushing the story line that the US will have hyperinflation are at the top of the list. Such sites as Minnesota Public Radio explain why we might be headed for moderate inflation, but not hyperinflation.
Of course, if you follow 'motlyeyfool.com', 'vdare.com', 'lewrockwell.com', and other such sites, you are convinced that hyperinflation will take hold. And guess where Faux News, Drudge, Bill O'Lielly, Lush Rimbaugh, et. al., get their 'news'? From such sites as those named above.
And no, I am not six years old, although I suspect you are much, much closer to that age than I am to being 75 years old.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Dear Nate,
What makes you think that Bernanke works for the president?
I have to agree with Geoff... I voted for Obama not just to get the red out of the white house, but to stop the abuse of power. It disturbs me greatly that Obama is pulling a lot of the same jank. I will give him a little more time, but he's already argued for state secrets and I don't see any secret plan to force the courts' hands.
As for Franken... no way Pawlenty will give him a certificate unless physically coerced. The Republicans will not give up until the Federal Supreme Court forces them to. They don't care about winning because they know Coleman lost. They only care about blocking Franken and disenfranchising MN.
Post a Comment