Not A Question Of Trust

TIME and again, Americans have elected a presidential candidate they trust the least. If perceived veracity were the key to winning, there would have been a President McGovern, a President Dukakis, and a President Perot. And this time around, in 1996, political experts overwhelmingly agree that the Republican challenger, Bob Dole, cannot be elected on Bill Clinton's flaws alone.

As an incumbent seeking re-election, Clinton has done a masterly job of improving his standing with voters. That's difficult for Dole with his many shortcomings (lack of dynamism, age, message and campaign skills) to overcome. If history is any indicator, Clinton is headed for a second term. Elected presidents with comparable approval ratings have breezed to re-election. Clinton has also maintained a double-digit lead over Dole for more than six months. The trend has been remarkably consistent, despite Clinton's Whitewater troubles.

In pre-millennium America, presidents are not expected to be trustworthy. Sure, Americans would prefer that their presidents be noble, moral, forthright and scrupulous about their public and private dealings. No one wants a president who has been unfaithful to his wife or to his word. Unless he is a vibrant and understanding leader, presides over a strong economy and seems more caring than the other guy.

Which is exactly why many people who don't trust Clinton are willing to re-elect him in 1996. Much to Dole's chagrin, many American voters no longer believe that politicians are honest. So, rather than choose a president based on trust, voters tend to look for a candidate who understands and can improve their lives; someone whom they think is capable of doing a few good things—even while bending the truth about other things.

"One of the great ironies of politics today is that people think Clinton is a scoundrel, but are going to vote for him anyway," says George Edwards, director of the Center for Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University. "People engage in a balancing act. It's character versus competence, and, frequently, competence seems to outweigh character."

바카라 웹사이트Despite the Dole campaign's effort to make character a key part of this year's presidential race, the public isn't buying. Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Travelgate and now Filegate may have smeared Clinton's image somewhat, but they have done little to dent his performance ratings or his consistent lead in the polls. Indeed, his lead is growing. According to a Harris Poll released recently, Clinton is favoured by 53 per cent of registered voters and is holding a lead of 22 percentage points over Dole—up from 17 points a month earlier.

바카라 웹사이트"People have very low standards and low expectations of politicians," says Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "Therefore, when a president like Clinton proves to have his sleazy side, many people say, 'Tell me something I don't know'."바카라 웹사이트

Although Dole doesn't have Clinton's obvious character flaws, that fact hasn't cut him any slack. Dole simply doesn't inspire or energise the voters even though they consider him a decent and upright man. Republicans themselves blame Dole for running a lacklustre campaign, for shooting his mouth off without thinking and for unnecessarily picking fights with the press.

To be sure, a major scandal could still doom Clinton. In the past, candidates with glaring character blemishes have been knocked from presidential contention. Most visibly, Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 race amid allegations of adultery. Experts also note that Hart's bigger problem was that he lied about his activities. In contrast, Clinton went on national television in 1992 and, with his wife at his side, conceded to unspecified marital problems. Clinton's character defects were overshadowed that year by a sluggish economy and George Bush's failure to recognise voter anxiety.

"A lot of people in 1992 voted for Clinton even though they thought Bush was a much better human being and more trustworthy; but they felt Bush didn't have a clue to how to move the country," says Alfred Tuchfarber, a political science professor and director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati. "In 1996, on the other hand, voters are satisfied with the way Clinton has handled the economy. But they still have some apprehension about jobs and their ability to support their families, unease that once again has put the economy—and not character—at the top of their list of concerns."

THIS year, polls have shown that potential voters consider Dole to be more honest than Clinton. More than half the respondents in separate polls said they thought Clinton either abused power or was hiding something about the Whitewater issue as well as the more recent White House collection of FBI files on Republicans who worked for previous administrations.

바카라 웹사이트"But honesty isn't the only thing voters want. They also want somebody who's going to do a good job with the economy and has leadership skills. These things rank higher than character," says Larry Hugick of Princeton Survey Research in New Jersey. "Clinton's strengths outweigh his weaknesses. People are saying he's doing a pretty good job as president. He's a forceful leader. He can stand up and come across and give a strong speech. People like that. Whereas Dole hasn't been effective in doing that."바카라 웹사이트

Not even feminist organisations have abandoned Clinton despite sexual harassment charges lodged by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. In fact, women, feminist or not, back the president in far greater numbers than men. "If you think a Clinton administration is going to be better for women than a Dole administration, you're going to support him even if you don't like his personal treatment of women or his character," said Wendy Kaminer, a public policy fellow at Radcliffe College. "You're not voting a best friend. You're voting a president."바카라 웹사이트

The dilemma Dole faces is best summed up by a Gallup Poll taken in mid-June for CNN and USA Today. There, 49 per cent of the respondents said Clinton was not honest and trustworthy. But 62 per cent said he was honest enough to be president. "People have concluded three things: whatever was done wrong on Whitewater was done long ago and wasn't very important; the Republicans are pursuing it as part of a political vendetta," said Mark Mellman, an adviser to the Clinton campaign.

Additional scandals could change the political landscape. But, in the absence of indictable offenses, people are more concerned about their safety, their education, their environment, their job security, and their well-being.

The Dole campaign has been struggling to show that the former Senate majority leader differs greatly from the president—politically and personally. The effort has led to embarrassing moments, such as when Dole announced that more people would trust him than Clinton to babysit their children. A Washington Post survey showed otherwise.

The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, has tried to put its own spin on what it means to have a strong character. "The way we define character is the ability to stand up and make tough decisions despite strong political pressure," says Joe Lockhart, spokesman for the Clinton-Gore campaign. Taking on tobacco companies and the National Rifle Association, sending troops to Haiti and Bosnia, and showing up the Mexican peso are all examples of how the president has demonstrated strong character in the face of political risk, adds Lockhart.

In the current issue of The Public Perspective, political analyst Guy Molyneux concludes: "If we look at current poll results in a historical context, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this race is nearly over. Bill Clinton must now be considered the prohibitive favourite to win in November. Even the combination of a lacklustre Clinton campaign and a brilliant Dole effort—an improbable scenario—would probably not change the outcome."