“NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED” is hardly an exciting political story. Therefore, we in the American public are repeatedly told that things have changed very much indeed.
For the last several months, the prevailing view in political and journalistic circles has been that the public, warmly disposed to the Republican revolution on Election Day 1994 and briefly thereafter, has turned dramatically against the GOP. But nothing of the kind has occurred. Though it makes for a less interesting story, it is remarkable how little public sentiment has shifted over the past two years.
This stability of opinion and mood is persuasively demonstrated by the research of pollsters Peter Hart and Robert Teeter, conducted for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. In their national survey of May 10-14, Hart and Teeter asked respondents which political party would do a better job on 14 separate issues. The list was a balanced one, ranging from crime, taxes, and foreign policy to welfare, education, and Medicare. At this supposed low point in Republican fortunes, pluralities gave the GOP the edge in nine of the 14 categories. Pluralities said the Democrats would do better only on abortion, education, health care, Medicare, and the environment.
Most striking is a comparison of the current findings to those of mid- October 1994, a mere three weeks before voters sent Republican majorities to both houses of Congress, for the first time in 40 years. Hart and Teeter asked then about 10 of the 14 issues they included in their May 1996 poll. On these, they found no change: Not only did the Republicans lead on 7 of the 10 issues in both October 1994 and May 1996, they did so by virtually identical margins. On “controlling government spending,” they gained 15 points; on health care, they lost 8. But on most issues, the difference, if any, was minuscule.
Ample other data, too, contradict the conventional Beltway wisdom that, after a year and a half of Gingrich & Company, the public has swung against the Republicans. For example, Gallup conducted an “opinion referendum” in April that asked respondents how, if “on election day this year you could vote on key issues as well as candidates,” they would vote on 26 propositions, including the balanced-budget amendment, school prayer, capital punishment, and the assault-weapons ban. A few of the propositions, such as physician- assisted suicide and “selling off public lands,” do not fit naturally on a liberal-conservative continuum, but 20 of the 26 do. And on only five of those 20 did majorities come down on the liberal side: banning assault weapons (57 percent in favor, 42 percent against); reducing defense spending (54 in favor, 42 against); raising the minimum wage (83 in favor, 15 against); reducing social spending (54 against, 42 in favor); and banning all abortions except to save the life of the mother (56 against, 42 in favor). On most of the 15 propositions that the conservative side carried — term limits, a reduction in government agencies, school choice, etc. — it did so over- whelmingly.
But if the country hasn’t shifted against Republican policy positions, isn’t it nevertheless true that President Clinton is much stronger today than he was before? Actually, no. In the May survey, 52 percent said they approved of Clinton as president. This was NBC/Wall Street Journal’s 31st asking of that question since Clinton took office, and the responses have remained relatively unchanging, particularly when compared with opinion about previous presidents. Clinton’s approval rating ranges from highs of 56 in December 1993 and 60 in January 1994 to lows of 41 in June 1993 and 43 in November 1994. His average approval rating in the 31 surveys is 49, just three points lower than his current number.
It is true that Clinton leads his opponent Bob Dole by (seemingly) large margins in “trial heats.” The present margin, according to the May survey, is 17 points (54 to 37); last year, it was only one point in June, two points in July.
But even here, the conventional wisdom of a big shift to Clinton should be questioned. When the May survey threw in the names of Vice President AI Gore and potential Republican vice-presidential nominee Colin Powell, the Clinton lead dropped to four points — a useful reminder of how soft the numbers are, when a modest plus for the GOP in the vice-presidential slot can trigger a substantial swing. Most vice-presidential possibilities aren’t well enough known to have any effect whatsoever.
Consider also 11 surveys, taken from last April to the present, that have posed the Clinton/Gore vs. Dole/Powell question: In the five taken in 1995, Dole and Powell led by an average of three points; in the six taken in 1996, Clinton and Gore have been up by two points — a swing toward Clinton, yes, but far from an earthshaking one.
So GOP partisans and the media alike should relax a bit as they attempt to interpret the campaign polls. The philosophical realignment that has brought the country to a more conservative position seems locked in, and the story of Clinton’s popularity remains what it has been throughout his presidency: His numbers are fair to middling and exceptionally stable. And while Dole has yet to make the sale to this year’s swing voters — the decisive bloc — he is very much in the running.
EDITOR-NOTE:
Everett Carll Ladd is president of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
by Everett Carll Ladd
