Finding Little Passion for Lewinsky Affair

Rarely has the gap between ordinary American voters and the nation’s political elite appeared so wide.

In the capital, Republicans vent outrage, Democrats wring their hands, prosecutors churn remorselessly and pundits chatter relentlessly. Outside the Beltway, most citizens say that the Monica S. Lewinsky controversy should be President Clinton’s private concern--and wish it would all go away.

A Los Angeles Times Poll conducted Aug. 22 found that 57% of the public still considers Clinton credible, despite his admission that he misled the nation and his family about his sexual affair with Lewinsky. And 63% said the whole issue should simply be dropped.

Yet media coverage of the scandal has continued unabated. A growing number of Republican leaders have called on Clinton to resign--and a small but growing number of Democrats, including former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), have said that the president should at least consider quitting. Even at summer vacation time, the capital is abuzz with gossip about the scandal.

Clinton partisans say the lesson should be clear: The elite is wrong, and the public should ignore its counsel.

“The American people find their own lives more interesting than this issue,” said White House Communications Director Ann F. Lewis, one of the president’s most stalwart defenders. “And they’re right.”

Actually, the public is split right down the middle on that issue: About half said they consider the Lewinsky scandal “important to the nation,” and about half said they don’t (51%/47% in The Times Poll).

But there is a gap, and it illuminates an unexpected divide in the nation over the scandal: not a partisan difference, but a matter of world view.

“The political community fundamentally misunderstands the public,” argued Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who has advised the White House during the controversy. “To the public, this issue is a personal matter, not a public matter. To the political community, everything’s a public matter.”

It isn’t just the media, he added. “It’s all of us: consultants, members of Congress, candidates, pundits, the press--Republicans and Democrats alike.”

Judging from last week’s commentary, the elite is not just in Washington, either. Among the newspapers calling for Clinton to resign was the Anchorage Daily News. Among the Democrats expressing dismay was Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who was well beyond the Beltway in Las Vegas.

Mellman and other analysts offered several reasons for the disconnect between the nation’s political elite and most of the public.

First, the elite has been paying much closer attention to the scandal and considers it important--because it pays closer attention to politics in general.

According to this argument, Washington is fascinated by the Lewinsky affair, not because it’s about sex, but because it’s about politics--about lies and legal processes and powerful figures’ careers.

Much of the public looks at this story, sees a private failing and is inclined to extend forgiveness. The elite looks at it, sees a political issue and seeks a public resolution.

“The public has experience with issues of this kind. Dr. Joyce Brothers would tell us that something like 50% of the public has had an affair,” Mellman said. “But the political community assumes that if a politician has one, he’s toast.”

Second, when Clinton acknowledged that he had been untruthful, many in the elite took it personally; many in the public did not.

“There are a lot of personal feelings that are bruised,” one Clinton advisor said, speaking of Congress. “We know we have a lot of work to do there.”

The clearest example of this factor is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who saw and heard Clinton’s fervent denial of his affair with Lewinsky in person in January. Feinstein took the president at his word. When he later admitted to a falsehood, she said her faith in him had been shattered.

Even some Democrats who did not believe Clinton in January are angry at him now--for putting them in the difficult position of having to answer public questions about his conduct.

A large majority of the public, by contrast, accepted the news that Clinton had changed his story with relative equanimity. It came as little surprise. In The Times’ poll, 68% said his admission made “no difference” in their confidence level.

Third, Clinton supporters argue that the elite simply has never liked this president, in part because (they say) he has defied elite judgment so often in the past.

“The Washington elite doesn’t like Bill Clinton, never has, and has grown to dislike him even more,” one White House advisor argued. “The pundits didn’t like his State of the Union speech in 1995; the public loved it. The pundits said his policies in 1996 were nothing but pandering; the public loved them.”

That factor is difficult to verify or measure. But the president’s defenders are promoting the idea, in hopes that it will help inoculate him against elite condemnation.

“The public resents this rush to judgment by the elite,” Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel said. “They elected him twice. They’re not about to have the elite decide for them. The harder the elite push, the more they push back.”

(On that count, the White House may be right. The public is deliberately slow to decide that any scandal warrants a constitutional crisis and reacts against the pundits’ snap judgments. “The press has actually helped Bill Clinton in this scandal,” argued media critic Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. “The public resented this elite group telling them out of nowhere that the president had to go. They hadn’t been consulted.”)

The question now is: Which world view will prevail? White House aides are praying that the public will stick with Clinton and endorse his argument that the scandal is simply a matter of his private life.

But Democratic members of Congress, who also make their living by reading public opinion, are wavering--and waiting to see whether the upcoming report from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr changes the climate.

“They’re hovering,” one Clinton advisor said with distaste. “Their first instinct is to find the safe place. You’re seeing that rush for safety.”

And even the public has given Clinton only a conditional pass. Even though 63% told the poll that the Lewinsky issue should now be dropped, that number could change significantly if new charges emerge. If it were proved that Clinton encouraged Lewinsky to lie under oath, 53% said that he should leave office; only 40% said the matter should be dropped.

“The story isn’t over,” a White House advisor acknowledged. “There’s more to come.”

What’s your opinion of the Monica S. Lewinsky matter? Join a discussion on The Times’ Web site. Go to: https://www.latimes.com/scandal