Talking about public opinion and public opinion yet to come: Media and legislator constructions of public opinion in the Clinton‐Lewinsky Scandal

Abstract

Previous scholarship has argued that constructions of public opinion serve one of three dominant purposes: (1) to provide drama; (2) to promote particular strategic political interests; and (3) to symbolically legitimize the public's role in democracy. This paper analyzes media and legislator constructions of public opinion in the Clinton‐Lewinsky scandal. We assess the uses of public opinion and the purposes to which they were put, and particularly examine the use of different time frames in this discourse. Throughout the scandal, the public remained firmly ambivalent about President Clinton, with majorities supporting him remaining in office, even as they disapproved of his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. However, the media frequently emphasized the possibility that public might change, and this future orientation was joined to a strongly disapproving emphasis on public morality, rooted in a construction of past values. Later the media took present public opinion as a given, but political implications for the present and future framed the coverage. Once the scandal came to Congress, members of Congress usually recognized the public's support for President Clinton, but offered different interpretations of the roots of this support, its proper influence on Congress, and its future course. In assessing political consequences of their votes, legislators acted like investors involved in futures markets, and judged which opinions were likely to retain intensity in the coming months and years. Changing in a dynamic fashion in response to events, elites’ judgments, and polls, constructions of public opinion served multiple purposes, and were strongly tinged by assessments about the stability and basis of public opinion. The low use of present‐oriented time frames delegitimized citizen views.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.