Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:37:49.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex, Politics, and Public Opinion: What Political Scientists Really Learned From the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Arthur H. Miller
Arthur H. Miller*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

William Jefferson Clinton is only the second president to have been impeached by the House of Representatives. While he was not removed from office, roughly half of the Senate chamber voted him guilty on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges that the House formulated as articles of impeachment in early February 1999. Although Clinton remains in office, numerous politicians, political pundits, and media commentators continue to condemn his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky while she was a White House intern as immoral and reprehensible.

Many outspoken Republicans have raised questions about how the American people could continue to have confidence in their political leaders, government institutions, or the rule of law when a president who lied to the public, lied under oath, and obstructed justice remains in office. Others ask how they can explain this immoral behavior and thwarting of the law to their children, especially in light of all the salacious details that were made public in Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's report on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

News of a possible extramarital affair between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky during the 1995–96 period surfaced in January 1998, coming to light in the course of investigations related to Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. Tapes Linda Tripp made of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky and turned over to Starr's office confirmed the allegations. What followed was a year-long exposé as details of the affair gradually tumbled into the public domain. The year ended with the House voting for impeachment on December 19, 1998, and the new year began with the Senate voting not to remove Clinton on February 12, 1999.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 721 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1999

Footnotes

*

My thinking on the subject of this paper and on trust in government over nearly two decades has been greatly influenced by my collaboration with Ola Listhaug. I thank him for collaboratively sharing this common substantive interest over such a long period of time. Brian McCuen and Karin Anderson deserve thanks for their help with data analysis and the preparation of the graphs. Peggy Swails, Katie Perciach, and Shanan Shaver-Notz are thanked for their assistance in preparing the manuscript. The work on this paper is part of a broader project currently underway with my colleague Bruce Gronbeck. This work is partially funded by a grant from the Obermann Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Iowa.

References

Citrin, Jack. 1974. “Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government.” American Political Science Review 68(September): 973–88.10.2307/1959141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack, and Green, Donald. 1986. “Presidential Leadership and the Resurgence of Trust in Government.” British Journal of Political Science 16(June): 431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Stephen C. 1993. The Malevolent Leaders: Popular Discontent in America. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald. 1986. “Presidential Character Revisited.” In Political Cognition, ed. Lau, Riehard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H. 1974. “Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970.” American Political Science Review 68(September): 951–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Borrelli, Stephen. 1991. “Confidence in Government during the 1980's.” American Politics Quarterly 19(April): 147–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Listhaug, Ola. 1999. “Government Performance and Political Trust.” In Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. Norris, Pippa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Listhaug, Ola 1993. “Ideology and Political Alienation.” Scandinavian Political Studies 16(March): 120–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Listhaug, Ola 1998. “Policy Preferences and Political Distrust: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden, and the United States.” Scandinavian Political Studies 21(March): 161–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Listhaug, Ola 1999. “Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden, and the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 29(June): 357–86.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana. 1986. “Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates.” American Political Science Review 80(June): 521–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph, Zelikow, Philip, and King, David, eds. 1997. Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman. 1993. “Less Seems More: What to Do about Contemporary Political Corruption.” The Responsive Community 4(July): 7–22.Google Scholar
ORS Publishing. “Polling the Nations 1986–1998.” Data CD: 4550. Bethesda, MD: ORS Publishing.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1998. “Monica Lewinsky's Contribution to Political Science.” PS Political Science and Politics 31(June): 182–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar