Even though the narrative of Bush and Republican unpopularity has crept into the mainstream media, there remain three pernicious myths about the existing state of public opinion that are often attached to the larger narrative. Appearing in numerous sources, the three myths are, first, that while Bush's approval-disapproval numbers are low, previous Presidents such as Reagan and Clinton have recovered from similar low. The second myth is that Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the existing state of polarization, and no one party is appealing to the center. Finally, the third myth is that while Republicans are unpopular, the country is not moving toward Democrats.

Each of these myths is, well, a myth. They reflect the now commonplace Republican strategy of claiming that "Democrats are guilty too" whenever Republicans are in trouble on any given topic, such as the Iraq war. It is a strategy designed to shift the blame away from Republicans by placing it simultaneously on everyone's head, and it is a strategy to avoid electoral consequences for their actions by blurring the differences between the two parties. As long as these myths are out there, they are all damaging to our cause. I would like to address each of them separately. This post will deal with the recovery myth. 1. The Recovery Myth The basic goal of the recovery myth is to make Bush look like past popular Presidents, such as Clinton and Reagan, during a time of historic unpopularity. By arguing that Bush's current lows in his approval ratings are similar to the lows of past Presidents who later recovered, the Republican Noise Machine allows Bush's unpopularity to not seem all that important, masks the true historic lows he has reached, and provides him with political capital by implying that a turnaround is right around the corner. However, the reality is that Reagan and Clinton never slipped as low as bush has slipped right now, and any President who has slipped this low has never recovered.

This myth is perpetrated primarily by only looking at the "approval" numbers for Bush and for past Presidents. By this metric, Bush's approval is indeed comparable to Reagan's or Clinton's all-time low. According to the Roper Center, which has a nifty webpage featuring all approval polls for past Presidents, Bush's all-time low approval of 35 is in fact similar to Clinton's all-time low of 36, and Reagan's all-time low of 35.

However, the "approval" in Presidential job approval polls is only half of any given poll. In order to make Bush's current predicament look like Reagan's or Clinton's, you have to ignore "disapproval" entirely. Here is a more useful chart of the historic lows reached by all Presidents since the start of public opinion polling:

Worst Net Approval / Disapproval Poll
Prez	 Low Approval	 High Dis      Gap
Bush 2	     37 		   61		 -24
Clinton      36 		   50		 -14
Bush 1	     29 		   60		 -31
Reagan	     35 		   56		 -21
Carter	     28 		   59		 -31
Ford	     39 		   45		  -6
Nixon	     24 		   66		 -42
Johnson      35 		   52		 -17
Kennedy      56 		   30		 +26
Ike	     48 		   36		 +12
Truman	     22 		   65		 -43
FDR	     48 		   43		  +5

From this chart, Bush has reached a disapproval point only surpassed by Nixon and Truman. His low net approval / disapproval has only been passed by Bush 1, Carter, Nixon and Truman.

The reason I point this out is because there is an important connection between Bush's approval rating and those predecessors that hit similar lows: they never recovered. No President has ever recovered from a disapproval rating as high as Bush's currently is, and no President has ever recovered from a net approval / disapproval rating as low as Bush's currently is. Carter and Bush 1 were soundly defeated at the ballot box. Truman decided to not run again. Nixon resigned. There was no recovery. Once they hit these lows, their presidencies were effectively over.

And yet, still, we are faced with the persistent myth of Presidential recovery from Bush-like lows. Someone could point out that Regan hit a similar high disapproval and low net approval / disapproval, but what they would be missing is how briefly Regan stayed at that point. Reagan's period of disapproval above 50% lasted from January 14th, 1983, until January 31st, 1983. By contrast, Bush II has been consistently recorded at greater than 50% disapproval since August 2nd of this year (and actually first hit over 50% back in April). Look at a further comparison between Reagan's worst four months of Presidential approval and Bush's:

Bush's Bad Stretch
	 Mean Approve	 Mean Dis      Gap
Nov 05	    36.8		  57.5	       -20.7
Oct 05	    39.9		  55.1	       -15.2
Sep 05	    42.4		  52.4	       -10.0
Aug 05	    43.0		  52.0	       -9.0

Reagan's Bad Stretch 
	 Mean Approve	 Mean Dis	     Gap
Mar 83	     41 		   49	       -8.0
Feb 83	     40 		   50	       -10.0
Jan 83	    36.3		  54.3	       -18.0
Dec 82	     41 		   50	       -9.0 

There are two key differences here. First, Reagan's numbers were never as bad as Bush's. Second, Bush's numbers are getting worse, while Reagan's numbers basically suffered a brief crater in January of '83 before quickly recovering. Bush's low is lower than Regan, and he has stayed at that low point for a longer period of time.

When asking their new favorite question about how Bush can or will recover, it is important for members of the media to be aware of the historic nature of Bush's unpopularity. No President to reach these lows has ever recovered. It is just as important for Democratic officials and activists around the country to realize this as well. When faced with the persistent pundit question as to how Bush can or will recover, the Democratic response must be simple, accurate, and to the point: Bush can't recover. No President to reach these lows has ever recovered to once again have a functioning presidency. All of his political capital has been spent. By all historical comparisons, Bush's Presidency is over.