“VOTERS PLEDGING PAYBACK IN 2000″ — so says the Washington Post about public anger at Republicans for impeaching President Clinton. Richard Berke of the New York Times says there’s “danger” for Republicans in punishing Clinton for moral misbehavior. Which Republicans exactly? “High-profile impeachment Republicans,” insists Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times, especially Rep. James Rogan of California, the most intense of the House impeachment managers. Even the revered Rep. Henry Hyde, the chief manager, is suffering politically in his reliably Republican Illinois district, according to a Chicago Tribune poll.
Cheer up, Republicans! This is all wishful thinking by the media. True, the public is not crazy about the impeachment and trial of the president. But there’s no serious evidence Republicans are bound to pay a horrible price — or any price at all — in November 2000 for having pressed perjury and obstruction-of-justice counts against Clinton. Oh, there’s evidence all right of a dip in party favorability, and Republicans are down as much as 10 percentage points in voters’ expectations of whether they’ll vote for a Democratic or GOP congressional candidate in 2000. But these numbers fluctuate month to month and simply aren’t predictive of what may happen 21 months from now. “It’s like asking what salad dressing you’re going to have on Election Day,” says polling expert Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute. “No one has a clue.”
Polls aside, there are three big holes in the argument that impeachment is killing Republicans. We’ve been told by White House defenders for the past year that folks outside the Beltway just don’t care about the Clinton scandal. This is correct, infuriatingly so. Now, however, they’d have us believe these same apathetic voters will care passionately about the scandal and impeachment in late 2000, nearly two years after Clinton’s acquittal. Indeed, voters will be so mad about mistreatment of Clinton they’ll eagerly vote Republicans out of office. In other words: a delayed backlash by the indifferent masses. It simply makes no sense. “If only 18 or 19 percent are paying attention to this, why is it going to be a problem?” asks GOP pollster Linda DiVall. It’s probably not, the Los Angeles Times found in a national survey in late January. Most voters give it “far less weight” than politicians do, the poll concluded.
Hole number two is the notion that impeachment is the main cause of the GOP’s current troubles. It hasn’t helped, that’s for sure. But this is a party that lacks issues and leaders. It’s going through a period of self-flagellation, while Democrats are still giddy over their pickup of five House seats last November. At the moment, voters show a preference for Democrats in handling practically every issue, including tax cuts and crime. Why shouldn’t they? Republicans haven’t fleshed out strong positions on these or any other issues. And don’t forget the country’s in economic heaven, with Clinton and Democrats getting the bulk of the credit. Problems? Republicans have plenty, but impeachment is the least of them.
Understanding the third hole in the impeachment-is-death case takes a little imagination. You have to imagine what condition the GOP would be in if Republican defectors had prevented the House from impeaching Clinton or if fearful Republicans had voted with Democrats to dismiss the impeachment counts without even a truncated Senate trial. Had either happened, the party would now be in a state of civil war. Conservatives would be plotting primary challenges of anti-impeachment moderates. Religious conservatives would be threatening to bolt the party. Under attack, Northern and secular Republicans would be feeling distressed. Big donors would be stepping up their criticism of social conservatives. Rank-and-file Republicans, the one solidly pro-impeachment group in the country, would be suffering acute heartburn. And Republican poll numbers would be worse than they are now.
The numbers are bad, but only some of them. Yes, the generic number — will you vote Republican or Democratic in the next House election? — is nothing to brag about. In DiVall’s national polling, for example, Republicans are down by 7 percentage points. But they were up 4 last August, and down 5 in October, and then beat Democrats narrowly in the total vote in House races in November. The Washington Post/ABC News poll had Republicans down 48 percent to 44 percent just before the 1994 election, in which they won 52 House seats. So the generic number is not only volatile, it’s also fallible. More worrisome is the party’s unfavorable rating overall. It is worse than it’s been in years. Even so, it’s only slightly worse.
The presidential matchups tell a different and far more hopeful story for Republicans. In virtually every national poll, Texas governor George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole are running substantially ahead of Vice President Al Gore. The Los Angeles Times puts Bush’s lead at 18 points, Dole’s at eight. Worse for Gore, crossovers are tilting Republican. While 10 percent of Republicans favor Gore, 23 percent of Democrats prefer Bush. As for independents, 68 percent go for Bush. Can a party doing this well in presidential matchups against the likely Democratic nominee be in total meltdown? No.
At worst, it suggests a 2000 scenario in which Republicans win the White House but lose the House of Representatives — which was plausible before Clinton was impeached. In fact, Republicans at this point are likely to lose the House, but, again, not because of impeachment. Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times theorizes there’s a connection between impeachment and public distaste for both Gore and congressional Republicans. Gore suffers because of public disapproval of Clinton’s conduct, Republicans because impeaching Clinton for that very conduct is unpopular. Hmm. I agree with Brownstein on one point. “This intriguing alignment of attitudes toward Gore and Congress could prove utterly ephemeral,” he says. More likely, the entire election will be driven by the presidential campaign. If Bush wins, Republicans will probably hold the House, and vice versa.
Let’s look at the two House members said to be harmed by impeachment, Rogan and Hyde. Reporter Juliet Eilperin writes in the Washington Post that Rogan’s “newfound prominence hasn’t exactly gone over that well with some of his constituents.” She quotes one who vows to vote against Rogan. But the voter isn’t identified as Republican or Democrat or as a Rogan supporter or foe in the past. So the quote is meaningless. And the others in the story who insist impeachment is hurting Republicans are all Democratic operatives. Rogan, of course, may lose in 2000. The changing demographics of his suburban L. A. district have caused a Democratic trend. And he does face one impeachment-related problem. Anger among Democratic activists assures he’ll be targeted in 2000 and face a well-funded opponent. Targeting, though, is a zero-sum game. If Rogan is targeted, then another vulnerable Republican won’t be.
As for Hyde, the Tribune poll found that one-third of the voters in his district think less of him because he’s pushed impeachment. Thirty-eight percent said they disapprove of the way he’s handled the whole impeachment drive. Roughly one quarter insist he’s been too partisan. The question is whether these numbers reflect anything other than a rallying around Clinton by Democrats. The president got 40 percent of the vote in the district in 1996. Thus, Democrats alone — and not even all of them — may be responsible for dismay with Hyde. So what’s the big deal?
Last weekend, House Republicans huddled in Williamsburg, Virginia, to discuss strategy and, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “lick their impeachment-backlash wounds.” Rep. Tom Davis, the new chairman of the House GOP campaign committee, warned them they need a new agenda. “Does impeachment hurt us in 2000? No,” he told the Washington Post. “But does it hurt us today? Yes.” It hurts by crowding out any Republican message besides impeachment. That will end on February 12 with Clinton’s acquittal. Afterwards, Republicans will be tested. If they have strong, clear positions on taxes, education, and Social Security, they’ll be fine in 2000. If not, they’ll lose the House for sure. Just don’t blame impeachment for that.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
