A NOD TO THE STATUS QUO: LOW TURNOUT A SIGN OF CONTENTMENT, NOT INDIFFERENCE.

Byline: Mark P. Petracca

THE American electorate has spoken, though not very loudly.

In the last presidential election of the 20th century, only 49 percent of registered voters cast ballots. This is the third lowest turnout in American history since 1828 and the first time turnout has fallen below 50 percent since 1924. Not a propitious end to what some historians have deemed ``the American century'' and certainly nothing for newly democratizing nations around the world to envy.

Lest we dwell on the deplorable state of civic responsibility, it is more fruitful to ponder what voters and nonvoters alike are trying to say with such a muffled expression of preference.

After two course changes in as many national elections, voters opted for a continuation of the status quo. After only two years, the Gingrich ``Revolution'' came to a largely unfulfilled end. Voters rejected the revolution, as did a great many Republicans running for re-election, and narrowed considerably the GOP majority in the House.

It's worth adding that California voters brought an abrupt end to Curt Pringle's reign as Speaker of the Assembly by returning control of that chamber to the Democrats and set back Senator Rob Hurtt's ambition of a GOP-controlled Senate by a number of seats now controlled by Democrats.

As for the much maligned and not-well-understood nonvoters - clearly the majority of the electorate - they may have told us that either no change in the direction of the nation was necessary or that the choice for change was largely inconsequential. It's impossible to know for certain, but we do know that when the electorate felt the need for change in 1992 they voted in much larger numbers.

The choices made by the voting electorate seem to indicate a general level of satisfaction with the current direction of the economy and nation. In 1992 the overwhelming majority of voters were dissatisfied with both, and an incumbent president - George Bush - was defeated.

This time around the widely perceived health of the economy and state of the nation strongly advantaged the incumbent's prospects of re-election. It also helped re-elect the vast majority of incumbents running for Congress and the state Legislature in Sacramento.

Yet an explanation of Clinton's re-election, the first second-term victory for a Democratic president since Roosevelt in 1936, cannot be reduced to public contentment with the economy. After all, only a year ago, pundits and delighted GOP operatives were already writing Clinton's political obituary as a one-term president.

Just as few political insiders thought George Bush capable of losing re-election in the summer of 1991, following a victory in the Gulf War, few thought Clinton could survive the juggernaut of Gingrich's ``Republican Revolution.'' But he did.

A number of factors contributed to yet another Clinton comeback. Yes, the economy and jobs were important issues to a great many voters who supported Clinton. But Clinton also won the votes of Americans concerned with Medicare and Social Security, education, and the environment. Bob Dole received votes from Americans concerned about the deficit, taxes, character and foreign policy.

Unfortunately for Republicans, who thought in 1995 that the presidency was theirs to lose in 1996, more voters were concerned about the issues which helped Clinton than those which advantaged Dole.

Clinton had a number of advantages going into the campaign season against Dole. Unopposed for renomination, Clinton spent the primary season saving and raising money and looking presidential. By contrast Republican candidates were fighting bitterly among themselves and pandering for support from Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition.

Even before Dole formally received the GOP nomination, Republican pundits realized his campaign was in a great deal of trouble. Bill Kristol, GOP strategist and co-editor of The Weekly Standard, reluctantly found the Dole campaign guilty of ``a fairly miserable performance.''

Conservative David Frum, author of ``Dead Right,'' concluded that ``The nomination of Bob Dole was a mistake.''

Worries about Dole's campaign and the candidate led Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and CNBC talk show host, to ask - on the eve of Dole's nomination, ``is it worth losing everything that conservatives have worked for since Barry Goldwater just so Bob Dole can go down in flames?'' Not for Thomas. He urged party leaders to persuade ``Dole to relinquish the nomination and throw open the Republican convention in San Diego.''

With allies like these in the press, it's no wonder Republicans complain about ``media bias.'' With Republican ``friends'' like these, Dole had little cause to lash out at the ``liberal media'' by the campaign's end.

Add to the weakness of Dole's campaign, Clinton's renowned skills as a campaigner. Not that Dole didn't try, really hard, and not just during his final 96-hour marathon. Dole attempted to excite the electorate a number of times, by resigning from the Senate to become just an ``ordinary citizen'' and by selecting supply-side guru Jack Kemp as a running mate.

The Dole team orchestrated a harmonious convention in San Diego, complete with the Doles and Kemps arriving at the convention site aboard a boat named ``Silvergate.'' Perhaps there was an omen here, following the Atlanta Olympics most Americans were reminded that silver medals are earned for coming in second. Which is, of course, precisely what happened.

Following the nomination, Dole played a number of different roles to garner voter support. He played Santa Claus for a while by offering every American family a 15 percent tax cut; voters either didn't appreciate or believe the gift. Dole then took on the mantra of ``Henny Penny,'' predicting that the sky was falling, first from teen-age drug use and then from an impending recession. That didn't work either.

Next, Dole become Archie Bunker, invoking the ``L-word'' to lambaste the president. But calling Clinton a liberal was a lot like describing Rush Limbaugh as ``buff.'' How could Clinton be a liberal when so many Republicans were boasting about all the conservative legislation Clinton had signed into law?

No traction was found here and Dole ended the campaign as Cotton Mather - the great 18th century Puritan minister from Boston who denounced the moral decay and corruption of his fellow residents in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Republicans had been growing the character issue to use against the Clintons for four years. And that's precisely why it failed to give Dole any leverage with voters.

A four-year-long character assault on the Clintons in conservative magazines like the American Spectator, on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, and on the radio air waves, effectively immunized voters to the final round of vitriolic attacks. By the time Dole felt obliged to play the character card, the electorate was well beyond shocked and perhaps unable to distinguish new allegations of corruption from old fantasies.

Clinton's final advantage over Dole was a gender gap of 16 percentage points. Fifty-four percent of women voters picked Clinton-Gore, compared to only 38 percent who voted for Dole-Kemp. Better yet for Clinton, more women than men voted (52 percent to 48 percent) in the election, enhancing the effect of the gender gap on the outcome. Since the gap between male voters was only 4 percent - to Dole's advantage - Republicans will not achieve status as the majority party without attending to the concerns of women voters.

Timing can be everything in politics. Clinton won re-election, but without winning 50 percent of the vote and without Democrats reclaiming control of either chamber of Congress. If the prospects of Clinton's re-election had been better in 1995, the Democratic Party might have been able to field a stronger group of challengers to stand against first-term GOP incumbents.

Had Clinton won a larger percentage of the popular vote, many more GOP incumbents might have been turned out of office. In winning less than 50 percent of the popular vote, Clinton joins 17 other American presidents since 1824 - out of 41 elections - who governed under similar circumstances.

It's very difficult to win a majority of the popular vote with a viable third party candidate in the race; Woodrow Wilson was elected president twice (in 1912 and 1916) with less than a majority vote thanks to a strong third-party showing.

Republicans may take some comfort that Clinton didn't pass the 50 percent market and should breathe a sigh of relief that Thomas' prediction was only partially right. But there is hardly reason for celebration in either party.

The work of giving meaning to this exercise in self-governance remains to be done and is contingent on three unknown factors:

First, will Clinton make good his campaign promise to govern in the center?

Second, will Republicans move beyond the vitriol of the campaign and in making some sort of tentative peace with the president be able to forgive themselves for an opportunity lost?

Third, who will take the initiative to solve problems Americans clearly want addressed - a president now unencumbered by the demands of running for re-election or GOP congressional leaders focused only the 1998 mid-term elections?

Finally, will the balance of power in Washington produced by Tuesday's elections result in productive comity or futile comedy?

The electorate has spoken, but not to these questions. We must all stay tuned and remain attentive to divine the answers.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: (Color) Spoils to the victor: President Clinton gestures triumphantly in Washington.

Associated Press