Right or wrong, reasons for loyalty to president aren't so complicated

TEANECK, N.J. -- The estimable British journal, the Economist, which has been even more critical of President Clinton than I have, takes up in this week's issue the question why "Clinton's popularity knows no bounds."

"The reasons for the loyalty are complicated," the lead editorial says. "And though some of them are justified, they are mainly rooted in a mixture of opportunism and delusion."

That is wrong. Complicated as the rationale may be, it does not deserve derision. As is almost always the case when large majorities of the public take a position and hold it over a long period of time -- more than a year now -- they have good reasons.

I had a chance to explore that thinking in some depth last week when, along with Washington Post reporter Dan Balz and Claudia Deane of our polling unit, I spent two hours with 10 New Jersey residents talking about Clinton, impeachment and the country.

We had established in the prescreening that all of them believed Clinton had lied under oath in the Monica Lewinsky matter. Polls show most of the country takes that view, and our purpose was to explore why so many of those who think him guilty still want him to finish his term.

Only four of the 10 said they had voted for Clinton in 1996; five had supported Bob Dole and one, Ross Perot. But most in the group -- like the country as a whole -- favor no punishment more severe than censure.

Clearly the strong economy has something to do with it. But one 53-year-old man had just been downsized out of a job; two young people were struggling to pay for their educations; and those in two-earner families expressed concern about the time pressures that took them away from their children.

They voiced the usual concerns about the cost of health care, the tax burden and what several called "the moral decay" in the country.

Their personal judgments of the president's character and trustworthiness were as harsh as those the polls record. Anthony Morales, a truant officer and part-time minister, said, "When I look at Clinton, I don't see a president. I see a manipulator, a conniver, a liar."

But they are uncertain Clinton is any worse than his accusers. Referring to the members of Congress, office worker Andra McCartney said, "I wouldn't think any of them ... would like to have somebody go through their lives with a fine-tooth comb. ... I don't have a lot of respect for politicians. ..."

Then, voicing the table's consensus, she added: "I think this is just a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. I think that he should be reprimanded. I think that he should be censured. Thrown out? Absolutely not. Like I said, I'd like to see what everybody else's laundry list is and see how pure and honorable they are."

Dan Balz reminded the group that they had condemned Clinton's actions and had said that if they -- or their bosses -- had done those same things, they would certainly be tossed out of their jobs and might well land in jail: "And yet for some reason you think that the ultimate punishment should not be inflicted on President Clinton. I'd like to hear why."

"Because of who becomes president then," said Helen Aizley, a political independent who supported Dole and strongly approved of the House impeaching Clinton. "Who wants Al Gore?" the man sitting next to her said. "Right," said another woman, "we know nothing about him."

And there is one other reason, perhaps more important than any of these.

Denise McNellis, a social worker, said that after all the scandals of the past quarter-century, "I think a lot of us have reached the point where we're just totally saturated with our government being corrupt in one way or another. ... And the media just takes it and blows it up to the point where you can't even watch television any more. ... I'm disgusted. I want him to handle the affairs that we hired him to do."

Even though she voted for Dole, McNellis said the election results must stand. The voters hired Clinton. And in their minds, no one else has a right to fire him.

For all practical purposes, they have nullified the impeachment clause -- whether the Economist and I like it or not.

archive