Obama’s slippage in approval rating

At the celebration of many conservatives and the bemoaning of many liberals, Obama’s approval rating by most of the different polls have reaching about 50%. But what is even more disturbing for Obama is that there are many more people passionately against him than for him, as Rasumussen’s daily tracking poll illustrates. His presidency could also be one of the quickest adminstrations to fall below 50% approval rating, which is interesting in light of the fact that he had the second highest initial approval rating after World War II  (see here and here). To tack on even more good or bad news (depending on your politics), the Republicans have a 5 point lead in a Generic Congressional Ballot.

So all is lost for the Democrats, the Republicans will gain a significant portion of seats in 2010, and Obama will become a lame duck president. Right? Not necessarily so.

Just from a quick and dirty analysis of the chart those who strongly disapprove and those who strongly approve, it seems Obama has reached the bottom of the current downward trend and things seem to be leveling out. This chart as time passes could take on the form of a parabola and move upward in favor of Obama. Of course, this could also be a temporary halting point before a further downward trend.

But charts and graphical shapes do not determine the future, but people do.  One of the biggest factors in determining public opinions is the state of the economy. As people are slowly growing more confident, this will tend to favor the current party in power. Nothing brilliant there. However in my opinion, it will be a larger factor than in the past (for reasons I will refrain from giving at the moment, for the sake of brevity). Case in point, during the election race, McCain had taken a significant lead in the polls (at which point, I, embarssingly predicted a McCain victory) and there was talk about the Obama candidacy losing its mojo of sorts. However, once Goldman Sachs’ problems were reported on the news, the momentum suddenly shifted towards Obama’s direction, and McCain never posed a significant threat after that. The economy won the election for Obama and lost it for McCain after that point IMO, not any politicking.

As the perception of the economy looks to possibly improve (see this), Obama’s approval ratings will rise steadily. Furthermore, the current ratings are no doubt affected by one thing, medical care reform. However, the attention of Americans is focused upon recent events. If an administration is to ever attempt to enact extreme reforms (which the medical care and the energy bills are), the first and third year of the administration is the time to do it, so that if it backfires with the public, the passage of time can begin to fade the memories of that time and allow for present issues to dictate the polls more so.

Long story short, the current polls mean little to nothing as to what will happen in the 2010 elections, and even less for the 2012 election. Expect to see a more moderate Obama administration and Democratic party as the 2010 elections approach.

With all that said, Obama shares some interesting parallels with Jimmy Carter, which I will perhaps bring out in a future post. That does not bode well for Democratic control of the future. But a similarity in patterns does not dictate continuing conformity.

Exodus 14 and Genesis 1:2

I recently purchased the book God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation by Terence E. Fretheim from my seminary’s bookstore. While I am only 94 pages in it, I have a feeling it will be a read I heartily recommend for everyone at all interested in Old Testament theology and/or Creation theology as the first few pages have set the framework which, if the author fulfills my expectations, that can have massive implications for Old Testament theology in general.

Anyways, in light of my renewed interest in Genesis and hope to engage Freitham’s ideas soon, I figure a new set of posts on Old Testament views of creation will set the context in which I can fully engage with Fretheim’s work.

One thing of particular note is the relationship between the Creation narrative of Genesis 1 and of the the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14. The imagery and language of the two bare some interesting parallels: “formless and void” and “wilderness”, “darkness” in both narratives, “Spirit/wind of God” and a “strong east wind”, “waters” and “sea.” Not to mention there are further possible parallels beyond just Genesis 1:2. The first thing God does in the Creation narrative is to make light, and in response to the darkness that comes upon the Israelites at the Red Sea, the pillar of cloud that gives lights to the Israelites. Also, the world in creation is not hospitable for life and it formed into a world full of blessing, just as Israel was going from a land that was inhospitable to them to “a good, broad land… flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8; note that same Hebrew word for “good” is used here and in Genesis 1). In addition, there is the splitting of the sea so that dry land arises for the Israelites to cross, just as God made the dry land on the third day.

The multiple possible parallels are probably more than coincidence, but rather speak to the fact that Creation is viewed in the terms and concepts of the Exodus, or vice versa (or even, that they are helped for the understanding for each other). If the Creaton and Exodus narrative are related, there is some further implications for interpretation of the first Creation narrative.

Firstly, the rather mundane statements such as “it was so” that follow the word of God may be more than a simple statement that what God spoke happened. Instead of it speaking positively about the extent to God’s powers, it may be seen as speaking negatively against any hypothetical powers that might could conflict with God in saying that there was no opposition to God’s desire for creation. In the Exodus narrative, the tenth plague of darkness (a reversal of creation?) is an attack against not only Egypt but its sun god Ra. If Ra existed and was powerful, there could have been resistance, but there was none to speak of. YHWH simply brought darkness upon Egypt, with seemingly no resistance.

Furthermore, YHWH’s victory over Egypt established himself as King. Likewise, the same concept could be applied to the creation narrative and seeing God as victorious over an inhospitable place (although, there is a need to refrain from calling it a evil in a idealogical, moral sense), and then exemplifying his reign by making humanity in the image of Himself, which carries possible connotations of royalty. That can be likened to Israel embracing the same ideals and beahviors of YHWH, such as having limits such as the Sabbath to exploitative work and practicing it just as YHWH did (all of which can be summarized in the statement “you shall be holy, for I am YHWH your God”; Leviticus 19:2)

Perhaps an insight is also available into how ruach, Hebrew for wind, came to be associated with the Spirit of God. With wind being the means by which God parted the Red Sea, such an central event could inspire an association with wind and God’s actiity in the world, at which point it is one short jump over to ruach being used to refer to God’s Spirit. Maybe this also means that to translated ruach in Genesis 1:2 as either Spirit or wind leaves a vital aspect out which the creators of the narrative would have seen.

Some of these relations may be stretching the relationship between the two narratives too far. However, I am of the opinion that viewing Creation in terms of the Exodus narrative is the way to go. And indeed, if the Exodus is historically accurate (and I believe it is) and the Creation narrative was formulated sometime relatively soon afterwards, at least to some degree, then it would make sense for the defining moment inIsrael’s history and relationship to YHWH to provide a framework for describing and understandign creation.