Will Americans Embrace Obama's "Change"?

CBS News' Kathy Frankovic: Public Shows Support For Gays In The Military, But Not For Closing Guantanamo Bay Prison

(CBS)  This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic.

---

Change has come. And Americans expect it. But "change" can mean many things.

Last week, when CBS News and The New York Times asked Americans to tell us their expectations for the Obama Presidency, 70 percent believed that President Obama will “bring about real change in the way things are done in Washington.”

In exit polls last November, a majority of voters said they wanted the government to “do more to solve problems.” That was the first time that has been the case since the question first appeared on exit polls in 1992.

While the most important accomplishment Americans hope President Obama can achieve is a fix for the economy, Americans recognize it will be a long process. More than half don’t expect real progress for at least two years, but three out of four think the economy will be better by the end of his first term in office.

Two additional - and more specific - changes are expected to come more quickly from the Obama Presidency: allowing homosexual men and women to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces; and closing the Guantanamo Prison in Cuba.

Gays serving openly was a very controversial issue 16 years ago, at the start of the Clinton Presidency, but now the concept has clear majority support. But closing the prison where the U.S. holds terrorist suspects on its military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving them elsewhere, does not.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military if their keep their sexual orientation secret -- wasn’t what Bill Clinton had promised in his 1992 campaign.

He had wanted to let homosexuals serve openly, but that idea met with intense and vocal opposition, and shortened Clinton’s inaugural “honeymoon.”

In a CBS News Poll conducted in early 1993, 56 percent opposed the idea. And just as many people (42 percent) opposed even allowing homosexuals to serve - not even if they kept their sexual orientation a secret - as favored permitting it. Today, though, only 17 percent of Americans oppose allowing gays to serve at all.

Opinions on some gay rights issues have changed dramatically over the past 16 years. Now, although many Americans object to same-sex marriage, most of the country has no problem with homosexuals serving openly in the military.

In 1993, only 37 percent of Americans supported this. Today, Americans are ready to move beyond “don’t ask, don’t tell:” 62 percent are now in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, while only 26 percent oppose it

The change in opinion on this question is apparent across the board. Majorities of all age groups now favor allowing gay men and women to serve openly, and support for that change in policy comes from people at all income and educational levels.

As is the case with many questions about gay rights, women are more supportive than men: 70 percent of women would favor the change in policy, compared with 54 percent of men. And there remain party differences: 70 percent of Democrats favor the change, but just 45 percent of Republicans and conservatives do (however, more Republicans and conservatives favor the change than oppose it).

Even white evangelicals in our poll favor allowing gay men and women to serve openly, by a margin of 53 percent to 36 percent.

But Mr. Obama’s other widely publicized promise for change does not have majority support - at least not right now.

Throughout his campaign, Mr. Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison. CBS News reported that he started making plans to do so as early as ten days after the election.

But this is not necessarily something the American public wants. In last week’s CBS News/New York Times Poll, 48 percent of the public said the U.S, should continue to operate the prison at Guantanamo Bay, while 40 percent agreed with Mr. Obama that the U.S. should close it and transfer the prisoners elsewhere.

Support for closing the prison is only slightly higher now than it was in mid-2006, when 34 percent wanted to close it. At that time, 51 percent wanted to keep it open.

There is also a party division here: 51 percent of Democrats would close Guantanamo, but only 19 percent of Republicans would.

However, we have seen American opinion change dramatically after presidents take action.

The most notable example is how many Americans who opposed military action against Iraq in both 1991 and 2003 supported the wars as soon as it began.

For example, in mid-January 1991, 46 percent of Americans thought the United States should wait before engaging Iraq militarily, to see if economic sanctions would work.

But a few days later, the same individuals were asked that question again, and only 16 percent said that the U.S. should have waited, and 79 percent said that starting military actions was the right thing to do.

If Mr. Obama does order the closing of the Guantanamo prison, of course, the public could applaud his decision. More than a third of Americans say they haven’t heard much about the prison and its use, and many of those people are Democrats.

But right now, despite the fact that the president wants to do it, closing the Guantanamo prison is not a policy the majority supports. Change in public opinion on that issue has yet to come.

[msmabuse]

I''''LL KEEP MY MONEY,MY FREEDOM & MY GUNS.
YOU CAN KEEP THE "CHANGE"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by shampy1
I agree

[shampy1]

I''LL KEEP MY MONEY,MY FREEDOM & MY GUNS.
YOU CAN KEEP THE "CHANGE"

[hsinco-2009]

HOW DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVER...EVER JUSTIFY TAKING 90% OF SOMEONES EARNINGS?

CAN YOU LIBERAL COMMIE SOCIALIST BLOGGERS TELL ME THAT YOU COULD EVER AGREE TAKING THAT MUCH WOULD BE MORAL?

Posted by KristianInAL at 07:13 AM : Jan 23, 2009

How about Bernie Madoff? You think he should keep his ill gotten gains?

[ausus-2009]

ubrew12,

I doubt if many ever paid 90% taxation in the US or anywhere. There were always ways around it. The majority of the tax burden always has and always will fall on the middle income earners to pay for gradiose government schemes.

The national debt did grow during the prosperous 1950s and the US did have lower taxes that most of the world at that time.

PS you didn''t name the other two Democrat presidents that presided over record inflation.

[mihann]

Yes, and then they''ll "embrace" his higher taxes, his growing welfare state, big government, socialized medicine, weak military, amnesty for illegals, etc..

[ubrew12]

ausus:

By todays standards, WWII''s ''Greatest Generation'' were unrepentant socialists. So am I. They believed in progressive taxation: the highest marginal income tax bracket was 90%. With this they: dug themselves out of the Great Depression, defeated global fascism, rebuilt war ravaged Europe and Japan, brought electricity and paved roads to rural America, built dams that still generate 15% of our electricity today, built the worlds best economy, with the dollar its gold standard, built the worlds best military, brought civil and gender rights to America, defeated global communism, and flew to the moon.

Without an ounce of ''supply-side'' debt.

The history of the 20th century is clear: cut taxes, and you''ll create a society headed for depression and deep in debt, basically enslaved to her richest 5%. Raise taxes and you''ll create a great society, capable of the greatness I listed above. Take the Gilded Age and the Reagan Age if you prefer them: to me they just lead, predictably, to Depression and Debt.

Oh, by the way, Carter''s inflation grew out of his willingness to pay for the Vietnam War, which Nixon and Ford passed on. He responded to it by appointing Paul Volcker to the Fed, and that defeated inflation. Inflation is coming back, it must. Its the only way to deal with the Reagan/Bush debt without destroying the nation. But, when it does, count me among those who know who CAUSED the inflation, rather than those who suffered under it.

[ausus-2009]

NativeWoman,

Which three US presidents in the past 100 years had the highest years of inflation?

[nativewoman]

Posted by greeneyes222 at 02:12 PM : Jan 22, 2009

Ahh, yes. The Clinton Administration. How awful it was according to the whitehouse.gov website:

1) the lowest unemployment rate in modern times
2) the lowest inflation in 30 years
3) the highest home ownership in the country''s history
4) dropping crime rates in many places
5) reduced welfare rolls

[ausus-2009]

noloyalisti,

"Tax the rich" has long been an impractical catch cry for socialists. Are you talking about income tax, inheritance tax or wealth tax?

Unfortunately what usually happens in countries that try that is that the "rich" set up permanent addresses elsewhere - such as high-income Swedes who escaped 90%+ income taxes by having residence in Switzerland and some high-income Democrat supporting actors and athletes who have residences in the Bahamas and Bermuda.

The "rich" also have the ability to hire tax lawyers that find ways around paying taxes.

In the end what happens is that governments have huge increases in medicine, education and welfare and the burden once again is put on the middle class.

[rhs648]

The change we need is to raise taxes big time on the rich. They are sitting on trillions of dollars waiting for us poor suckers to bail out the system with our money. When it hits the bottom and we have lost everything, they will move back in to profit on our losses. Again.

We are such dumb suckers and the Republicans who are too ignorant to see this truth are the biggest suckers of all. Except they are hurting all of us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by noloyalisti

Are the wealthy you talk about Democrats or Republicans? Are the dumb suckers you refer to Democrats? Then you refer to the Republicans as "too Ignorant to see the truth." Who is left? If you are referring to the wealthy as being Republicans, they can''t be too ignorant if they will move in to profit on our losses. You are all over the place on this.

[yellow651]

One "change" I will gladly embrace is the new reality of an African-American president. No more excuses about "being held back" in America. Everyone has the right to succeed or fail based solely on their own abilities regardless of color. How could it be otherwise when our president, the highest official in the land, is African-American. From now on, failure is just failure, not racism.

[noloyalisti]

The change we need is to raise taxes big time on the rich. They are sitting on trillions of dollars waiting for us poor suckers to bail out the system with our money. When it hits the bottom and we have lost everything, they will move back in to profit on our losses. Again.

We are such dumb suckers and the Republicans who are too ignorant to see this truth are the biggest suckers of all. Except they are hurting all of us.

[rhs648]

Makes a HUGE difference who is in power, doesn''''t it?

MAJOR Leading Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million Inauguration Party - Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Major Leading Headlines Yesterday:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $150 million"
"Obama Spends $150 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
" ''''Everyman Obama'''' shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration


Yup, "change" has come.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mattcool247

That is brilliant!

[greeneyes222]

"Will Americans Embrace Obama''s "Change"?"

What change? The return of the Clinton gang in the Cabinet? A crook running Treasury?

This is only "change" for those too young to remember what came before. For the rest of us, it''s been there done that and here we go again.

[thgdriver1]

They just confirmed that tax cheat Geithner as Treasury Secretary, Is that the change Nobama promised?

[rhs648]

America has the best medical care and social security in the world. Obama and his Harvard buddies can only screw these up.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by shyam8

Yes and No. Many things can be tweaked to improve them. As you point out, things can also be made worse. President Bush added a prescription benefit tp Medicare. Now that the booing died down, most elderly people are happy with that benefit. This might be considered a tweak that benefits a lot of retired people. If social security benefits were lowered, that would be an unwelcome tweak to people on Social security andr for those planning to receive Social Security in the future.

[sincity_q]

There are two camps here.

One sees misty visions of a workers utopia where everyone is pad good wages, the cost of living doesn''t kill your paycheck and a healthcare system that is about healthcare and not about an insurance industry that leeches the life from every doctor and patient in the land.

The other is completely counter and sees the dark clouds of socialism approaching as the government becomes a wet nurse in every aspect of life. Here, unions are a disease, choking the life from business and chasing industry to far away lands like China.

Personally, I prefer the in-between spot because there is no such thing as change that doesn''t hurt someone, somewhere. There is also the issue of becoming so caught up in your own rhetoric that you begin to believe it all yourself. That can be foolish and unhealthy.

Many who voted for Obama are those who feared what the GOP would do with Social Security and Medicare. Some, if not a great many depend on this program they paid into their entire lives. But President Obama has already said he will cut Social Security and Medicare benefits if the money is needed elsewhere. This is the change... but it will hurt those least able to stand up to it.

Nothing or no one is perfect, not even Barack Obama. The chirping and cheering is nothing more than self-delusional entertainment... kind of like what a parakeet does when he''s home alone.

[shyam8]

America has the best medical care and social security in the world. Obama and his Harvard buddies can only screw these up.

[macusweil]

"This American will not embrace his phony changes."

It''s ok, help like yours we probably don''t need to put the US back on track. You must be one of the real ''mericans SP was talking about in her failed bid.

[jackp32]

The Banking Committee Head Queen does not have time to oversee the Military Commission on ***.