Triumph for Clinton

So Bill Clinton all but won his 50 percent of the popular vote: a triumph for a president who, in midterm, was being labeled a probable second-time loser. But less than 50 percent of all eligible citizens could be bothered to vote at all: a failure which had been predictable all along.

Once again, the election of the world's most powerful president in the world's "greatest democracy" falls a long way short of the ideal. The American people are judged by commentators to have endorsed continuity and the politics of the center; hence, the paradox of victory for a Democratic president, while the Democratic Party fails to win back the House or Senate.

Yet the message which the American people actually delivered -- those who bothered to vote -- is a good deal more complex and negative. Opinion polls suggest that half of those who voted doubted the president's trustworthiness. Fortunately for Mr. Clinton, a larger percentage had an unfavorable opinion of Speaker Newt Gingrich, the burden Mr. Dole could never shed.

Fortunately too, a majority said that issues matter more than a candidate's character. The decisive issue remained the economy, where a majority believes that the country is moving in the right direction.

Mr. Clinton has also shown remarkable success in attracting a majority of women voters, by a greater margin than his opponent gained the majority of men voters. (The age factor may have been the equivalent for Mr. Dole of Richard Nixon's stubble factor.) Another poll statistic should also prompt reflection.

Half of Mr. Clinton's supporters are said to have emerged from the voting booth with second thoughts about the president. How fortunate again that a greater percentage had similar misgivings after voting for Bob Dole!

In a campaign where both contestants maneuvered for the middle ground, Mr. Clinton has had a clear advantage all along. He has been less encumbered by his "liberal" wing than Mr. Dole has been by his right wing. By shifting to the center in the second half of his term, Mr. Clinton was already in occupation.

It has been a largely policy-free campaign, which leaves political analysts grasping for clues as to what Mr. Clinton will actually do in his second term.

The White House is trying to fill the gap with predictions that he will leave behind a substantial "legacy". This remains less the language of policy substance than of presidential image, which may also become vulnerable to more negative interpretations as the Republicans renew their attack upon his character.

It is of course possible to take a more comfortable view both of Mr. Clinton's policy deficit and of the poor turnout that has returned him to office. The drift towards the center, it may be argued, is a desirable phenomenon in a less polarized world, and voter apathy is a price worth paying for it.

From a foreign perspective, it may also be suggested that Mr. Clinton's avoidance of radical policies at home should leave him with more incentive to seek radical solutions to problems abroad, such as the Middle East and Northern Ireland.

But American society is hardly in such good shape that it can be left to coast along, and the low turnout also points out its own social problems. Not only is the 49 percent of eligible citizens who voted the lowest recorded, it has happened in spite of 11 million new voters being registered through "motor voting" and similar procedures to make registration easier.

Special efforts had been made to recruit the young, the poor and the black, yet they remain the categories least likely to vote, and the most vulnerable in society. Should this not be the real challenge for those building bridges to a new century?

-- The Guardian, London