Joe Biden has steadied the nation – why don’t his polling numbers reflect this?
In his first State of the Union address since Democrats lost control of the House, Joe Biden celebrated recent economic gains – especially declining inflation and soaring job growth – while taking a bow for legislative victories that will curb prescription drug prices, expand health benefits for veterans, slow climate change and rebuild the nation’s infrastructure.
Biden’s speech reminded me of how good a president he has been, especially given what he inherited from the former guy, who made a fetish out of dividing and angering Americans while accomplishing nothing except giving a giant tax cut to big corporations and the rich.
Biden has steadied the nation. He has brought competent people into government. He has enacted important legislation. He has fortified America’s alliances against despots like Putin. He has strengthened American democracy.
All of which raises a troubling paradox. Only 42% of Americans approve of Biden’s presidency – barely above the 41% at his last State of the Union address, and a lower percentage at this point than any president in 75 years of polling except for Trump and Reagan (who at this point was hobbled by a deep recession).
And despite Biden’s significant achievements, fully 62% think he has accomplished “not very much” or “little ornothing”.
Even on his signature initiatives – from improving the country’s infrastructure to making electric vehicles more affordable to lowering prescription drug costs to creating jobs – majorities believe he has made no progress.
And although jobs are being created at an almost unprecedented rate, unemployment is at its lowest since 1969, and inflation is dropping, Americans are deeply pessimistic about the economy.
Why the wide discrepancy between what Biden is achieving and what Americans think about him?
It’s easy to blame faulty polling. Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate, as America experienced in the last two presidential elections and during the 2022 midterms.
Yet Biden’s has consistently low ratings across almost all opinion polls. And even if the polls systematically underestimate his popularity, he is polling no better than Trump did at this point in Trump’s presidency, which itself suggests a remarkable degree of public hostility.
The media is often mentioned as another reason for Biden’s low public ratings.
To be sure, Fox News and other rightwing outlets continue to minimize Biden’s achievements and exaggerate his inadequacies, and to suggest his involvement in all manner of scurrilous activities.
The mainstream media is not a whole lot better. The New York Times, Washington Post, and major television networks are guilty of “two-sides”-ism – attempting to draw an equivalence between Republicans and Democrats at a time when a large swath of the Republican party continues to align itself with Trump and Trump’s attack on American democracy.
This has made it difficult for the news-consuming public to appreciate how much Biden has got done and to credit him for achieving legislative victories with the smallest majorities and most extreme Republicans in living memory.
That said, the media alone can’t account for Biden’s low ratings. Only a small fraction of the public is exposed to Fox News or to the New York Times or the Washington Post.
A deeper reason Biden is not doing better with the public is the deeply cynical and angry divide Trump has spawned in America. Even if George Washington were president today, a large percentage of the public would probably despise him.
Social media, meanwhile, has become a cauldron of ever more extremist rage. Under Elon Musk, Twitter is less a “public square” than a hellhole of hatefulness. No national leader is immune to such relentless battering.
But perhaps the most important factor behind Biden’s low public ratings are the continuing crises most Americans find themselves in.
About two-thirds of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Almost none has job security. Most pandemic supports have terminated.
Although jobs are plentiful, wages have not kept up with inflation. When the median wage is adjusted for these price increases, the purchasing power of the typical American continues to drop.
And while Covid is receding, long Covid is taking a devastating toll. Fentanyl and related drug poisonings continue to rise.
Joe Biden and his administration have made important progress. Their legislative victories are crucial. The American Rescue Act of 2021 helped millions survive the pandemic.
But Biden’s major initiatives on infrastructure, the climate crisis and semiconductors are only starting to be implemented.
Most Americans are still hurting. Hopefully for Biden and for America, the hurt won’t be nearly as bad by the fall of 2024.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
are appropriate and safe for children once they turn 13. Conversely, they also assume they are unsafe for children under 13.
But this is not necessarily the case.
What does the evidence say?
Social media platforms do present some risks for young people. These include online bullying and harassment, exposure to misinformation and inappropriate content, grooming, privacy breaches and excessive use.
Stories documenting the potentially harmful effects are rarely out of the news. Studies claim links between social media and poor mental health and low self-esteem.
These findings are concerning and there is no doubt social media may negatively affect some young people’s wellbeing. But it is not a straightforward question.
While these studies might find a correlation or link between excessive social media use and poor self-esteem, for example, they rarely point to direct causation. Young people already experiencing low self-esteem and depression may use social media significantly more than others.
So why don’t we just increase the age?
Murthy acknowledges it is difficult to keep kids off their devices and social media. But he suggests parents band together,
But any increase in the age – whether formal or informal – will not necessarily keep children safer online. Children can easily falsify their ages (many already do). And young people are good at finding creative and secretive ways of doing what they want regardless.
Why can’t parents just say no?
It is often suggested – by cyber safety experts – that parents just say no. This message has been reinforced by celebrity commentators including the British actor Kate Winslet, who told the BBC:
While these approaches may work with younger kids, older children are unlikely to simply comply. Blanket bans and restrictions not only lead to family conflict but are also more likely to lead to children using social media without parental consent or knowledge.
This is a problem because parents play an important role in helping children navigate online spaces, including the sometimes fraught nature of peer relationships on social media.
If a child has a social media account without parental permission, they are much less likely to ask their parents for help if they have a problem online, for fear of getting into trouble or having their device taken away.
Children have a right to be online
Discussion about risks also tends to ignore the potential benefits of being online.
Social media is incredibly important for many young people. It keeps them connected with friends and extended family, provides a platform for creativity and self-expression, and enables civic participation and activism.
Social media also provides access to likeminded individuals and communities who may provide solidarity and support, especially for marginalised teens.
Children, particularly teenagers, also have a right to take part in online spaces, including social media.
The UN committee on the rights of the child notes that children have the right to “meaningful access to digital technologies” as a way of realising the full range of their civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights.
So when should my child get a TikTok account?
There is no one-size-fits-all approach here. Children vary tremendously in terms of their maturity, skills, life experience and judgment.
On top of this, online risk is not equally distributed, as children who are more vulnerable offline are more vulnerable online. For example, children with mental health problems, learning difficulties, a disability or who have problems at home are more likely to experience high-risk situations online.
In deciding whether your child is ready for a social media account, parents might consider:
Is my child especially vulnerable to online harms?
Does my child have the required maturity and resilience to manage potentially negative online social interactions?
Does my child listen to advice and follow rules?
Is my child aware of the risks and has strategies for managing them?
Will my child come to me with any problems encountered online?
Parents might also consider their children’s offline lives, as these often carry over into online spaces. This includes what their friendships are like, their propensity for taking risks and their ability to consider the consequences of their actions.
Start talking early
The best thing that parents can do is initiate conversations about social media and the internet early and often.
Many issues that play out on social media are extensions of young people’s existing peer relationships. Parents can talk to their children about their friends and peers, show an interest in their child’s online activities and openly discuss their child’s rights and responsibilities online.
Some parents may wish to set reasonable expectations and rules about appropriate use of social media. Documenting these expectations through a “family technology agreement” that is negotiated democratically as a family, rather than through top-down rules, is more likely to succeed.
This article was originally published by the Conversation. Catherine Page Jeffery is a lecturer in media and communications at the University of Sydney