April 15, 1999

Impeachment and its effect on the 2000 campaign

By Stacy Green
CyberCaucus2000 News Service
Drake University

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton will go down as a dark moment in U.S. history. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report of explicit details made their way into the nightly talk shows and every classroom in the country. Now, with the campaign for the 2000 elections heating up, what will be effect of the impeachment trial and the Monica Lewinsky affair?

There are many different angles to consider. First, the impact on the candidacy of Vice President Al Gore. Will he stay in Clinton's shadow and inherit his problems? Or will Clinton's continuing success in the polls be an asset to the vice president? Second, the Republicans. Will there be a backlash against the GOP? There is a possibility that the party politics employed by the Republicans in the trial could backfire against them in 2000. Finally, the media and nature of the campaign. Will the privacy of the candidates be a larger issue? Will the press probe harder and how will the candidates react to that?

Is Gore in Trouble?

According to a report in the Tuesday, April 6, Los Angeles Times, both Gore and Congress could reflect the scars of impeachment.

Presidential historian Robert Dallek told the Times that although the public may vote for George Bush because Gore was "tarred," they may also vote in a Demoratic Congress.

According to the Times, Gore's situation resembles former President George Bush's when he ran in 1988. Bush was mostly known for supporting President Ronald Reagan, who was besieged with the Iran controversy in the last months of his presidency. Bush managed to win by dissociating himself from Reagan and building a strong public identity. While Gore has yet to do that, it is not clear how he will be affected.

In an interview, Republican Iowa State Rep. Scott Raecker said Gore may well benefit from Clinton's popularity.

"As any vice president who runs for office, there will be natural links to the president," Raecker said. "I would think that in the end Clinton's campaign support, especially that of Mrs. Clinton, will be an advantage, if the economy stays strong."

Debra De Laet, Drake University assistant professor of political science, also said the strength of the economy would have an impact on Gore's campaign, and that the impeachment scandal may not affect him negatively.

"The election is still way off, " De Laet said, "and American's political memories can be short. I don't think the impeachment will be the major factor that shapes peoples votes. The state of the economy close to the election will be much more important than the sex scandal."

De Laet added that Gore had a clean reputation, and that if the impeachment had any effect on him, it would most likely be positive.

"The House decision to impeach was not popular with the American people, and I think public resentment towards the House was one reason elections last fall played out as they did," De Laet said. "Gore won't explicitly draw on this impeachment resentment--I don't think he wants to bring it up directly--but he might try to draw on it by talking about the role of the extremists in the House."

De Laet reiterated that the keys to the 2000 election will be the state of the economy, the message that Gore develops, and how effectively he is able to package it. According to De Laet, Gore must overcome his "wooden" image and, she said, if the Republicans succeed in nominating a moderate, Gore will have a tough race.

A Backlash?

A second question is the effect on the Republicans. In December, GOP sources claimed they weren't thinking of 2000 but focused on the issues at hand.

Tom Delay, a Texas Republican and the GOP's most vocal advocate of impeachment, told the Christian Science Monitor on December 16, 1998, he wasn't worried about a backlash.

"I don't really care," Delay was quoted as saying. "This is too important of an issue to worry about politics and polls.

At that time, Republicans stated that moral high ground was important and that the focus was upholding the Constitution, regardless of the consequences. They also felt that in two years, the public would have forgotten the impeachment scandal. However, strategists said then it was a mistake.

Raecker, in an interview in Des Moines, acknowledged the public's anger with the GOP and said that it could be the Democrats' trump card.

"Yes, the American people are just as put off with the Republican Congress as they are the president," Raecker said. "The Democrats will play this to their advantage by vilifying the Republicans for the impeachment fiasco."

The public may not forget in two years, and, according to De Laet, if the Democrats play their cards right, the impeachment could turn out to be an asset.

"If they are too obvious in their strategy, they might get burned," De Laet said. "One of the reasons the public seemed so frustrated with the impeachment was because it appeared to be so obviously partisan and the Republicans kept hammering on that at the expense of the issues. The public might also get frustrated with Gore if he appears to be simply attacking Republicans. If he can do so more subtly (talking about the importance of representatives following the public will, extremism on the right, etc.), the strategy might produce some marginal benefits."

Are the Democrats out to get the Republicans? To some extent, said DeLaet, but not necessarily more than usual. She said she believes they will try to capitalize on the Republicans' vulnerablity, especially at the level of the congressional elections.

De Laet noted one case in particular where a moderate Republican in Buffalo, N.Y. (a predominatly Democratic city) led voters to believe he would vote against impeachment. At the last minute, he voted in favor. Seats like that will be vulnerable, she said.

The Effect of the Media

The media are notorious for exposing political figures' indescretions. With the huge impact of the impeachment, reporting on the privacy of the candidates could change, as well as their strategies to combat the press. De Laet said the catalyst for change will more than likely be the media, not the politicians.

"The media may decide to pursue allegations, partly because the genie is out of the bottle," De Laet said, "and partly because they've rediscovered that sex sells."

De Laet also said that focusing on private lives could be a risky political strategy, so politicians themselves may not directly pursue it.

"Even in congressional elections, where I think the impeachment scandal may be important in some districts, that will be because of how a particular representative voted more than the sex lives of the candidate," De Laet said. "As the Republicans learned--or refused to learn--over the last fall, the public does not necessarily want to judge their politicians based on their sex lives."

If it does become an issue, De Laet said, it could well be candidates airing their dirty laundry as a pre-emptive strike, such as Gov. George Bush's references to mistakes made in his youth.

"They may try to diffuse attention by signaling that they're not perfect, in which case there may not be as many grounds for going on after them at this point," De Laet said.

Raecker said the impeachment trial showed what the public did not want to know about their candidate, no matter what the press reported.

"If the impeachment process showed us one thing in terms of what we want to believe, it is that the American public is not interested in character issues," Raecker said. "We may read about it from the media, but the people seem to be saying 'I don't care what you do personally as long as you get the job done.'A sad state of affairs."