A Break in the Storm, or Merely a Lull?

Americans in Burbank or Keokuk, looking at the polls since the State of the Union message, may believe that the Clinton scandals have faded and that the “Comeback Kid” has done it again, but both the scandal fade-out and the ratings recovery are a lot less obvious to longtime political observers.

Special Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, in turn, may have negative charisma and job-approval levels matched only by Vlad the Impaler, but for those who follow the spoor of pursuit, he has more FBI agents than ever and the outlines, at least, of a case that may win attention from a grand jury, if not cheers from the public.

Not that things are clear yet. Monica S. Lewinsky may have a youthful, overactive imagination, and it’s possible her 37 White House visits were really to play Scrabble. And more than a few nervous Republicans are worrying that Starr may have bought a turkey 10 months before Thanksgiving.

What’s also possible, though, is that Starr will wind up fielding a far larger case that uses sexual harassment and favors as a legal scene-setter for cover-ups, hush money, job payoffs and witness tampering that goes far beyond poor Monica and her “presidential kneepads.” Legally, the big question is not what she did but who might have tried to pay her off and convince her not to talk about it--and how many other situations might be similar.

These are possibilities, apparently, that have at least a few Starr aides thinking that Bill Clinton could become what President Richard M. Nixon became in 1974--an unindicted co-conspirator whose future could be dumped in the lap of the House Judiciary Committee.

Watergate, alas, is a useful backdrop for considering Tailgate, or whatever the best name is for the current mess. Clinton, like Nixon, is a president the American people don’t quite trust or believe in--talented, but flawed. Nixon, too, had an approval rating in the high 60s--because of peace in Vietnam--even as he started to unravel in January, 1973. And Nixonites, too, saw a conspiracy: left-wing liberals out to get their man from Day One. They were 30%-40% correct about that; just as Hillary Rodham Clinton is 30%-40% correct in talking about right-wing conspirators and Clinton haters.

Not that the Watergate analogy should be taken too far. The Clinton mess is still at an early enough stage to be defused by developments, and maybe it will be. But at a certain stage, Watergate took on a life of its own through the obvious and inexcusable tainting of the presidency, and we will probably know by spring if that has happened again.

Yes, this could mean that the five-part Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton strategy that made a poll triumph out of the State of the Union address was no more than a transient success. Yes, it could also mean that spring 1998 turns into eight weeks of steamy legal, investigative, press-leak and trial-depositional trench warfare stretching from Washington and Little Rock to Los Angeles. Moreover, that might only be the beginning of the political, legal and constitutional process.

It is hard not to agree with Americans who say: Why are we wallowing in all this sleaze? What has happened? Why do the media keep talking about it? Arguably, though, high government offices took on harem mentalities because 60, 50, even 30 years ago, the press did not bring it up--in fact, hardly touched it. By the 1960s, as we know from exposes down through the years, U.S. presidents thought they could get away with anything in office--corruption, wiretapping, espionage, sharing girlfriends with mobsters (John F. Kennedy), droit du seigneur in the Oval Office (Lyndon B. Johnson) and allegations, at least, that even the Watergate scandal of 1972 was linked to a call-girl ring.

The press had nothing to do with nurturing this trend; the politicians did. However, by the next go-go period, the 1980s, the press took up the challenge: the incredible self-destruction of Sen. Gary Hart’s 1988 presidential campaign after he encouraged reporters to check him out; Capitol Hill’s refusal, in 1989, to confirm Texas senator and good-times John Tower as defense secretary; the unbelievable sex-laced Senate confirmation hearings on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Now we have Clinton, Lewinsky and the rest spreading beyond late-night television jokes into daytime coverage that has 8-year-olds asking their embarrassed parents to explain. Perhaps, Clinton--some conservatives certainly think so--has become the national boil that finally has to be lanced. That, of course, assumes charges not yet proven, will be.

Through Watergate, Nixon, a quarter-century ago, paid for the excesses of the “imperial presidency.” Maybe Clinton will pop the “prurient presidency” or, more aptly, the presidency in which one alleged legal violation after another is linked to sex: cover-ups, sexual harassment, factors for promotion, hush money, witness tampering. If this is purely private behavior, then the Tennessee Valley Authority is a small private electrical generator in rural Appalachia.

Now, the skeptic can fairly ask: What about the polls following the State of the Union address? Didn’t the president’s terrific numbers--at least 80% liked the speech and his policies, while his job-approval jumped into the high 60s--suggest that the American people want to drop all the sex-related accusations to let Clinton concentrate on doing his job?

Yes and no. Yes, they’d like the scandals to go away or be disproved, and voters certainly approve of the Social Security, education and health- and child-care proposals he made in his speech. But, no, they’d want him to resign or be impeached if it turns out he’s been involved in cover-ups or witness tampering.

The five-part Hillary-and-Bill offensive that surrounded the State of the Union was a triumph. The problem was that it was incompatible with total innocence; overkill for minor guilt, and most plausible as the opening blitzkrieg of a serious war. Hillary Clinton is the first president’s wife to have served as a staffer in a previous impeachment process--Watergate--and she handled her three strikes like Gen. Patton handled tanks.

Her attack on Starr was telling--he has seemed clumsy as well as out to get her husband--and far better managed than Nixon’s blundering 1973 firing of Archibald Cox, the first Watergate special prosecutor. In the wake of her attack, 2-to-1 national majorities told pollsters that Starr is playing politics, not conducting his investigation fairly and impartially.

Her wifely “Stand By Your Man” role was well-played and effective. Her hypotheses that she and the president are victims of a “right-wing conspiracy” undoubtedly helped rally liberal and Democratic stalwarts against the old enemy, just as Nixon, as he became embattled in 1973-1974, turned to rally his own base on the right.

The president’s own double-barreled role--to pitch the most popular Democratic programs in his State of the Union and, before that, to look the cameras in the eye and deny any sexual relationship with Lewinsky--was also a success. Between them, the president and first lady raised his job approval from shaky ratings in the mid-to-high 50s to unexpected and triumphant numbers in the 65%-73% range.

The Clintons’ apparent problem is that neither poll numbers nor attacks have buckled Starr or muted the media. Pursuit of evidence continues, and if it shows that the president was lying about his relationship with Lewinsky, voters can be expected to reach a second conclusion: In late January, the Clintons were lying to the public, too.

Should this happen, it could be expected to sour the American people and prepare their thoughts for further disappointments and legal arguments. This is where the special counsel’s supposedly emerging case with respect to Lewinsky’s White House visits, their timing and their discussions comes in.

For the moment, admittedly, voters are not going to take what Starr says--and especially what Lewinsky says--over anything the president says. Starr’s task is a little easier: to find evidence and witnesses who can convince a grand jury. If he does find it and marshals it, national disenchantment could be profound.