Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need Americans to Trust Her

Following Bill’s political playbook could work for Hillary—but only if she uses the whole thing.

AP Photo
Add to Briefcase
Ronald Brownstein
May 6, 2015, 4 p.m.

For all those con­vinced that the seri­al al­leg­a­tions of eth­ic­al im­pro­pri­ety swirl­ing around Hil­lary Clin­ton will punc­ture her pro­spects of win­ning the pres­id­ency next year, there’s a rel­ev­ant pre­ced­ent to con­sider: On the day Bill Clin­ton was reelec­ted by more than eight mil­lion votes in 1996, a sol­id 54 per­cent ma­jor­ity of voters said in exit polling that they did not con­sider him hon­est and trust­worthy.

It’s pos­sible that voters have since grown less tol­er­ant of per­ceived eth­ic­al mis­steps, such as the ques­tions Hil­lary Clin­ton is fa­cing over her private State De­part­ment email ac­count and the Clin­ton Found­a­tion’s fund-rais­ing prac­tices. But it’s more likely that em­pathy, faith in her com­pet­ency, and ideo­lo­gic­al com­pat­ib­il­ity will count more than in­teg­rity in shap­ing voters’ ver­dict on Hil­lary Clin­ton—just as they did for her hus­band.

Few pres­id­ents ever faced as many dis­tinct eth­ic­al al­leg­a­tions from their op­pon­ents and the press as Bill Clin­ton did dur­ing his two terms. Those charges cre­ated per­sist­ently high doubts about his hon­esty and mor­al­ity. But none of them pro­duced a fatal wound.

(RE­LATED: Hil­lary Clin­ton Just Told Im­mig­ra­tion Act­iv­ists What They Wanted to Hear)

Many factors al­lowed Clin­ton to sur­vive ques­tions about his char­ac­ter: sat­is­fac­tion with over­all peace and prosper­ity, re­spect for his skill and ef­fect­ive­ness, and dis­taste for crit­ics who re­peatedly seemed to over­reach. But his most im­port­ant shield may have been the be­lief that he un­der­stood, and genu­inely hoped to ameli­or­ate, the prob­lems of or­din­ary Amer­ic­ans. For Hil­lary Clin­ton, it’s prob­ably more im­port­ant to match his strength on that front than to im­prove on the weak per­cep­tions of his char­ac­ter. And that’s something she has not yet done.

The exit poll con­duc­ted the day Bill Clin­ton won reelec­tion in 1996 cap­tured the con­sist­ently con­flic­ted Amer­ic­an as­sess­ment of him, and of­fers clues about how the coun­try may weigh its sim­il­arly am­bi­val­ent feel­ings about his wife. Clin­ton dis­patched Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee Bob Dole that day by a sol­id 49-41 mar­gin. Yet in the sur­vey, 60 per­cent of voters said they did not be­lieve Clin­ton had told the truth about the con­tro­ver­sial “White­wa­ter” in­vest­ment in Arkan­sas, and just 41 per­cent said they con­sidered him hon­est and trust­worthy (far less than the 54 per­cent who did not.)

Those doubts cost Clin­ton some, par­tic­u­larly with in­de­pend­ents. But ac­cord­ing to the exit poll, Clin­ton won nearly one-fifth of those voters who did not con­sider him trust­worthy and al­most one-fourth who doubted him on White­wa­ter. How did Clin­ton at­tract so many voters du­bi­ous about his char­ac­ter? The an­swer is that they placed high­er pri­or­ity on oth­er as­sess­ments of him. Al­most three-fifths of voters said is­sues mattered to them more than char­ac­ter—and they backed Clin­ton by more than a 3-1 mar­gin. And while Dole won by more than 10-1 among those who said hon­esty most in­flu­enced their vote, that group rep­res­en­ted just one-fifth of the elect­or­ate. Clin­ton amassed sim­il­arly lop­sided mar­gins among the com­bined 35 per­cent of voters who said their de­cision was most in­flu­enced by the can­did­ate’s vis­ion for the fu­ture, be­ing in touch, and caring about people like me.

(RE­LATED: Hil­lary Clin­ton’s Cam­paign De­clares War Against ‘Clin­ton Cash’)

A sim­il­ar dy­nam­ic sus­tained Clin­ton through his im­peach­ment or­deal two years later. Pub­lic doubts about Clin­ton’s char­ac­ter skyrock­eted after his af­fair with Mon­ica Lew­in­sky was re­vealed. But as Stan­ford Uni­versity polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist Richard Brody wrote then, “the pub­lic’s view of Pres­id­ent Clin­ton’s com­pas­sion and strength of lead­er­ship” ac­tu­ally im­proved through the tu­mult. The share of Amer­ic­ans say­ing Clin­ton “un­der­stands the prob­lems of people like you” rose to about 60 per­cent in ABC/Wash­ing­ton Post polls through 1998. Most Amer­ic­ans, in oth­er words, seemed will­ing to look past Clin­ton’s flaws so long as they felt he was look­ing out for their in­terests—and cap­able of ad­van­cing them.

Today, Hil­lary Clin­ton is stronger on the second part of that equa­tion than the first. Since the 2008 Demo­crat­ic primary, she has scored well as a strong and de­cis­ive lead­er. But Amer­ic­ans have con­sist­ently giv­en her more equi­voc­al grades for em­pathy. When the ABC/Wash­ing­ton Post poll last asked in March wheth­er Hil­lary Clin­ton “un­der­stood the prob­lems of people like you,” just 47 per­cent said yes, far few­er than for her hus­band even dur­ing im­peach­ment. In this week’s NBC/Wall Street Journ­al poll, a com­par­able 43 per­cent de­scribed her as “com­pas­sion­ate enough to un­der­stand av­er­age people.”

Few­er Amer­ic­ans may view Hil­lary than Bill Clin­ton (at least in his hey­day) as em­path­et­ic partly be­cause she, like most politi­cians, can’t match his unique abil­ity to con­vince voters he could “feel your pain.” She may also suf­fer be­cause the al­leg­a­tions con­front­ing the Clin­tons now in­clude charges that they have used their con­tacts to en­rich them­selves, or be­cause Amer­ic­ans have seen her in power­ful po­s­i­tions for so long they can’t eas­ily ima­gine her re­lat­ing to their struggles. (It didn’t help when she ac­know­ledged she has not driv­en a car since 1996, or when he sug­ges­ted he needs six-fig­ure speeches to “pay our bills.”)

Whatever the cause, it’s al­most cer­tainly more im­port­ant for Hil­lary Clin­ton to per­suade Amer­ic­ans that she un­der­stands their lives, and has solu­tions rel­ev­ant to their chal­lenges, than to dis­pel the doubts about her in­teg­rity. Bill Clin­ton’s ex­per­i­ence sug­gests that if Amer­ic­ans be­lieve she can walk in their shoes, they will ac­cept plenty of mud on her own.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.