But suck your thumb, stare at the wall, and wonder in print what holds Bill Clinton's popularity up despite a year running Shame Inc., and—hoo-hah!—more mail comes pouring in than from any essay in years. 

As a result, I now have in hand a survey conducted on the same scientific lines as the memorable Literary Digest poll of 1936, which forecast Alf Landon's victory over F.D.R. 

Finding #1. Clinton loyalists see the media as elitist hounds and the man being impeached as populist fox. "What the political class and media elite don't understand is . . . he likes us so much better than he likes all of you," notes a Floridian. "In fact, he can't stand you and neither can we." 

#2. Loyalists find his failings to be their failings. "I prefer human leaders," writes an Indiana woman, "and Bill Clinton seems to have a sin for each of us to identify with." (She adds: "We like people who tell us we are doing good. When was the last time any right-wing ideologue said we were doing good?") "He is being guided," a preacher notes, ". . . being used to reveal human frailties which have been a part of who we are for eons." 

#3. He is grudgingly admired for his Houdini-class escapes. "Our lives replay high school," says a New York City man. "Bill Clinton is the popular kid—athletic, socially adroit, charismatic—who runs afoul of the rules. Yet he somehow manages to escape real punishment or taint. Worse, he makes the winning touchdown, delivers the class address, and scores with all the babes. Meanwhile, the dutiful, diligent geeks (Republicans) just can't understand the unfairness of it all." 

#4. Some loyalists discern a liberating message in his example. "Bill Clinton has challenged two of our hypocrisies," writes a Connecticut woman. "We have had to admit that sexual activity is not the crime we thought it was, and that, on occasion, we condone dishonesty. . . . He has reminded us that sexual activity is . . . a necessity for our good moods, our creative energies, and even for our feelings of generosity toward others." 

#5. Impeachment is akin to combat, say Clinton die-hards, and sides must be taken. "I feel I've been put in the situation of someone who must choose between two sides in a horrible civil war," writes a Florida man. "One in which both sides are routinely committing atrocities. I can live with the aftermath of Clinton's conduct. I cannot live with everyone suddenly having to pass the muster of the self-appointed guardians of the national morality." 

#6. In this culture clash, loyalists see Clinton as their persecuted champion. "Fundamental belief systems, analogous to those in the Civil War, are in question," holds a Connecticut Ph.D. "The equality, or dominance, of a race or gender underlies the apparent conflict between political parties . . . about familiar white male values in contrast to more democratic but scarier ones." 

#7. Loyalty to Clinton in this contest is intensified by anger at his pursuers. "It's fun watching you right-wing, obsessed nut-job freaks twist in the wind," fulminates a New Yorker. "This is war." A more temperate Californian notes: "The phenomenal mean-spiritedness of so many of Mr. Clinton's critics elevates him by comparison. People grow weary of negaholics." 

That's the central point about the source of Clinton support in the mail drawn by my wonderment. "How can you not understand the concept of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? The critics of the President scare many of us out here in the hinterlands," reports a Wisconsin man. "They are moralists, they have no sense of human frailties, and they frankly aren't very likable. If they kept their mouths shut and let moderate people present the issues, the President's support might diminish significantly." 

There we have a snapshot of some of the sources of this President's remarkably solid support. 

The loyalists' Clinton: not a reckless predator of women but a victim of an elitist-moralist plot; not a breaker of solemn oaths but a breaker of moral chains; not a cornered con man but a hero to all who feel hunted. 

Is this the new, much different Silent Majority? 
 
 

Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company