Even great communicators typically failed to move the public to support their initiatives. Bill Clinton, “the great explainer,” could not win public backing for his economic stimulus bill or his cornerstone proposal for reforming the health-care system. Nor did the public (or congressional Republicans) support his 1999 bombing in the Balkans.

(Also on POLITICO: Live from the West Wing: Obama goes prime time)

The public moved against increased defense spending as soon as Reagan took the oath of office, and he never achieved even plurality support for his high-priority policy of aiding the Contras in Nicaragua. Nor could he convince the public to support limiting domestic policy expenditures or environmental regulations. Rescuing Americans in Grenada was an easier sell.

World War II posed the greatest crisis of the twentieth century. FDR, the century’s supreme politician, was continually frustrated in his efforts to convince Americans to rearm and aid their allies against Adolf Hitler’s onslaught. It took events in Europe and then Pearl Harbor, not a fireside chat, to change voters’ minds. The president’s plan to “pack” the Supreme Court split the Democratic Party, gave birth to the Conservative Coalition, and effectively ended the New Deal…

The deep polarization of today’s politics only exacerbates these tendencies. Why should we be surprised that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to support military actions against Syria? Partisanship trumps the party’s traditional hawkish outlook on world affairs. Meanwhile, the Internet, cable television, and talk radio amplify the strident differences among partisan elites and facilitate the public’s selective exposure to information through “narrowcasting” to particular audiences.