John Woolley and Gerhard Peters have an excellent site where they publish their work on The American Presidency Project. It’s an absolute treasure trove.  To the subject of approval ratings, we find that Obama’s numbers have moved from a high of 69 points early in his administration to the mid 40s 19 months in (currently 44%).

And what of W?  He entered office with much lower approval numbers, due in large part to the legal fracas surrounding his losing the popular vote but winning the Supreme Court vote: 9/11 handed him a popularity coup sending his approval ratings soaring to 89%.  19 months in his approval ratings had settled back to 68% and by the mid-term elections were closer to Obama’s current numbers at 48%.  At the end, only 34% approved of Bush’s performance.

Clinton, despite his manifest personal troubles entered office with a 58% approval rating and left with a 66% rating, astonishing given the rise of the conservative attack machine during his administration. Only Reagan and Bush the Elder managed the same trick. 19 months in his approval rating had also dropped, oddly to 42%, essentially the same as Obama’s.  At the time of his re-election, his approval ratings stood at 58%.

Bush Senior’s popularity curve looks like a roller coaster.  He entered office at 51% and left at 56%.  As was true with his son, his ratings soared to 82% during Desert Storm, seemingly proving that America loves a tough guy, at least for awhile.

And what of the Lion of the Right?  Reagan took over from a President suffering 34% approval ratings, due to many things not the least of which was the Iranian Hostage Debacle.  Despite the fact that Reagan won the electoral vote going away, he entered office with an approval rating of 51%.  At the 19 month mark his approval ratings stood EXACTLY where Obama’s do, 44%.  At his re-election, his popularity stood at 61%, roughly the same as Clinton’s.

Conclusions?  The first is what investment prospectuses always tell you: Past performance is not indication of future performance.  This has to be one of the most common, most insidious decision-faults going: looking at data about the past (data, by definition is always about the past) and using it to project the future.  Project is actually an apt descriptor, as it is an exercise in projecting our hopes, dreams, fears, fobias, and preconceptions on the future based on what we see in the past.

A second possible conclusion is the lesson of Bill Clinton: It’s the economy stupid.

Obama tells us that we can have quality, universal health care without increasing the deficit. He tells us that he intends to have the 9/11 detainees given a fair trial in a civilian court but assures us that the trials will end in convictions. He declares that he will wage war in Afghanistan, but pledges to start bringing the troops home in 18 months. And everybody nevertheless takes these contradictory, irreconcilable statements seriously, as they parse, analyze, scrutinize Obama’s every word for some kind of coherent meaning. The president is like the character Chance in the novel and movie Being There, whose every fatuous utterance was celebrated for its profundity.

Some of Obama’s defenders chastise his exasperated listeners for their inability to detect the president’s “complexity.” But a fantasy of universal popularity that panders to every conflicting interest simultaneously is not the same thing as “complexity.” It is complexity if I tell my wife that I have to move to another state where I know I can find work, but that I realize the strain it will put on our marriage, and that I know the effect it will have on our child, and that I am aware of the consequences of such an attempt if I don’t find a job, having spent so much money on moving and establishing myself in a new place. It is not complexity if I tell my wife that I have to move to another state where I know I can find work, but that I will be back next week, and with lots of money.

In the spirit of full disclosure, my caution is based on two points.  The first is that I was and largely still am an Obama supporter (though I fully admit my reasons may not be rational).  The second is that I made a promise to myself that I would stop writing political screeds. So why this?

I have been reading for the second time a book on decision making called The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz.

The Paradox of Choice

Barry Schwartz. Harper Perennial 2005, Paperback, 304 pages, $3.22

It’s not my favorite book on decision making though it and he have certainly enjoyed a lot of attention for a “perfect for the times” message that can best me summed up by the B-Head for his book:  How the Culture of Abundance Robs Us of Satisfaction.

Schwartz quotes a considerable amount of research to make the case that:

• An over-abundance of choices ultimately leads to confusion, poor decision making, and dissatisfaction with the decision once it is made.
• The more we are forced to justify our choice, the more dissatisfied we become with our choice.
• The reasons people give for making a choice are seldom the real reaons.
• The more people are forced to make trade-offs, the lower the satisfaction with the choice ultimately made.  Worse, the stress of making difficult trade-offs leads to low quality decision making.

Or to put it another way.  Many of us fancy that we are rational decision makers, or at least we can be on-demand when we must be.  The implication here is that we can, on an as needed basis, turn off our biology, our socialization, the mental short cuts, and the internal angels and demons we haul with us and simply add up the plusses and minuses or review the numbers and make the obvious right choice.  That’s a big ask.

That’s not to say that we can’t wrangle our emotions and engineers ourselves past many decision traps becuase we can.  It is to say that we don’t stop being human through the process. So if we believe Schwartz, and I do, many of us are left looking for paths through irreconcilable differences that often don’t exist, not becuase the facts support such a notion, but becuase we believe in Santa Claus.

I have never met the current or previous president but it seems plausible from afar that one of their many differences is that 43 didn’t appear to agonize and certainly had no visible regrets.  The same can be said for Cheney and Rumsfeld (though not Powell).  Critics of the three would say that one of the reasons that’s true is that they didn’t bother to consider alternatives that conflicted with what they had already decided to do.  If that is in fact an accurate accusation, it makes them no different than most of us (hard as that is for my liberal friends to hear).

Conversely, President Obama appears to pride himself on his thoughtful, inclusive, and complete decision making processes.  As a decision engineer, I heartily applaud his instincts and his practices.  But listening to his recent address at West Point about Afghanistan I am left wondering if Barry Schwartz doesn’t have his number: That at the end of the day, Mr. Obama hates making trade-offs and therefore makes others do it for him.

If that is true, it makes Obama like the rest of us as well.  It is also leadership sin number one: Forcing people below your pay grade to make the tough trade-offs you’re paid to make.