If you believe the media, or the administration's perception of its national regard, you'd think President Obama was more popular than a lemonade stand on a 100 degree day.

A closer examination of the facts is quite revealing, though.  Of the ten preceding presidents since WWII, starting with Truman, five had substantially higher approval ratings (from roughly 70% all the way up to 87%) at this point in their initial terms, two were similar (give or take a few points), and three were about five to seven points lower.  Not quite the juggernaut that many in the chattering class would have us believe, particularly when you consider Obama is following one of the most disliked presidents of all time.

Why is that?  One can certainly presume that as the candidate of a predominantly Left-leaning media, it is in the media's best interest to dramatize Obama's popularity.  After all, the more he is presumed to be unnaturally esteemed, the easier it will be for him to steamroll his media-backed Big Government agenda through the Congress. 

It is no wonder that Rahm Emanuel has pursued a strategy of going for the gusto early.  He, Obama, and others in the administration clearly believe that the best time to push through a bold (some might say radical) agenda is while the iron is hot (i.e. the President is most popular).

There are two flaws in their calculus, however.  One, his mandate was for a new type of collaborative governing, not a fundamentally ideological shift to the Left.  Second, by eschewing the bipartisanship on which he campaigned, he is only hastening the decline in his popularity, and ultimately making it more difficult to deliver the transformative change in which he is so interested.

Again, history is illustrative.  The Presidents who did not suffer the wild swings and/or declines in popularity were the ones—Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and to some extent Clinton—who were most adroit in finding common ground with the opposition.  The others largely allowed harsh partisan battles to diminish their capacity for pragmatism and ability to achieve more of their goals.

In four or eight years, Obama's biggest lament , in my estimation, will be the opportunity he's wasting to protect his popularity and thus achieve a much more significant portion of his agenda.  The substance of his program is not terribly dissimilar to that of the Republicans.  The difference lies in the methods.  The GOP is quite interested in major energy, healthcare, and education reform.  They simply want to see the market, rather than the government, play a leading role in the transformation.  If Obama can find it within himself to seek out legitimate common ground and compromise (e.g. Reagan and Tip O'Neill), rather than continuing his current pattern of listen then disregard, he'll be able to drive material change.  If not, get ready for an indefinite trip back to the quagmire of bitterly divided government.

Even though there are forces at play working to convince us that dissenters are on a fools' errand, this President is not popular in a heretofore unseen way.  History proves that quite clearly.  It can be a very quick and precipitous drop to the bottom.  Check out Truman, Carter, and both Bushes if you're not convinced.

Obama can accomplish consequential change, but it's much less likely without genuine compromise.  If he is more than an ideologue, then it's the end result that should matter, not the path to the finish line.