Evaluating Presidential Character
Journal article by Betty Glad; Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 28, 1998
Journal Article Excerpt
Evaluating Presidential Character. by BETTY GLAD During the 1992 presidential campaign, the "character" issue for Bill Clinton hinged on charges, aptly summarized by Bush's political director, Mary Matalin, that he was a "pot-smoking, draft-dodging, womanizer."(1) Near the end of the campaign, Bush personally raised questions about Clinton's patriotism. On the Rush Limbaugh show on September 21, 1992, he inveighed against "Clinton's total failure to come clean with the American people" concerning the draft.(2) The next month, on Larry King Live, Bush suggested that Clinton might even have engaged in disloyal acts when he traveled to the Soviet Union while a student at Oxford. The Republican candidate thought it strange that Clinton went to Moscow one year after the Soviets crushed Czechoslovakia and did not remember whom and what he saw.(3) During the first months of the Clinton presidency, the character issue revolved around the proprieties of both of the Clintons in relation to the Whitewater land deals prior to their coming to Washington, the mishandling of the replacements in the White House travel office, Craig Livingston's blanket request for FBI files on past administrative aides, and the handling of papers in Vince Foster's office after his death. In 1994, however, the focus shifted to the president's sex life and his purported inability to "come clean" about it. David Brock's article in the American Spectator quoting Arkansas state troopers who said they had aided Clinton in a series of sexual escapades and the subsequent filing of Paula Jones's suit against the president placed the president's sex life at the top of the news.(4) Journalist Joe Klein made the leap from the president's alleged sexual promiscuity to his modus operandi at the political level in an article in Newsweek in May 1994: |
It seems increasingly, and sadly, apparent that the character flaw Bill
Clinton's enemies have fixed on--promiscuity--is a defining characteristic
of his public life as well. It may well be that this is one case where
private behavior does give an indication of how a politician will perform
in the arena.(5)
| Eventually, however, a majority of the American public would make a distinction between the public and private character of the president. Although many had questions about his private morality, his job performance ratings in the polls remained high throughout the first half of 1998. On February 1, shortly after the Monica Lewinsky story broke, a Washington Post poll showed Clinton's approval rating at 67 percent, the highest it had ever been. As late as July 14, a Washington Post poll found Clinton's approval rating at 63 percent.(6) Clinton's success with the public, as the polls throughout this period also indicate, was partly due to voter satisfaction with the way he has handled the economy. According to a January 21, 1998, Washington Post poll, Clinton's job approval rating stood at 68 percent from those who thought the economy was going well. Beyond that, a majority of people saw him as a person who was sympathetic to their problems. Thus, in an April 2-4 Washington Post poll, 56 percent he said he understood the problems of "people like them." Women, who were Clinton's strongest supporters, were clearly influenced by what many of them saw as his positive record on women's issues. Many of them seemed to be following the words of Susan B. Anthony, "If a man's public record be a clear one, if he has kept his pledges before the world, I do not inquire what his private life may have been."(7) Moreover, a majority of the American people perceived an inner toughness that belied his apparent lack of discipline in some areas. In a January 25-26 Gallup poll, 70 percent of those polled thought that Clinton was tough enough for the job; 62 percent said he was a strong leader. His performance in the State of the Union address shortly after Lewinsky's purported affair with him was made public reinforced this view. The address itself was rated as excellent by 75 percent of the individuals interviewed in a January 29-31 Los Angeles Times poll. In a Gallup poll of March 20-22, 1998, 77 percent of the respondents thought the words "can get things done" applied to Bill Clinton. This was an 11 percent rise since January 23-24, 1998.Behind these varying assessments of Clinton are certain assumptions as to how we evaluate character in a public figure. There seem to be two diverse systems of thought along these lines. In the text that follows, I shall delineate these ... |
End of free preview...
To continue reading this publication, you must have a Questia Subscription.
Try Us Today! Click Here
Questia provides the world's largest online library of scholarly books and journal articles, with integrated footnote and bibliography tools, highlighting, note taking and book marking. With a Questia subscription, you'll have access to the full text of more than 67,000 books and 1.5 million articles.
Already a subscriber? Login:
Sponsored Links
Free Newsletter
Get helpful how-to's, writing tips, search strategies, quizzes & more!
Search the Library
