It's the culture, stupid; the irony of Clinton's success.

The irony of Bill Clinton's situation is that if he succeeds in doing the job he got elected to do, there is a real likelihood he will be thrown out of office.

Before explaining what I mean, I should confess that one of my abiding prejudices is that in accounting for great historical and political events one should find causes proportionate to effects. This prejudice stands in contrast to an alternative view, the "Cleopatra's nose" theory of history, according to which major events are sometimes produced by trivial causes; e.g., if Cleopatra's nose had been half an inch longer or shorter than it was, the entire course of human history would have been different.

I have been listening to the wise men and women of the Washington press explain why Bill Clinton is in trouble. It is, they say, because he gives too few press conferences; or because he overexposes himself on TV; or because, unlike Ronald Reagan, Clinton has too many items on his agenda; or because he is a pragmatist whose spouse is an ideologue; or because people in the White House didn't like David Gergen; or because former chief of staff Mack McLarty was too nice a guy; etc., etc. (Oddly enough, they never mention the problem of an absurdly large Washington press corps, which, by a kind of Parkinson's Law of journalism, justifies its existence by making mountains out of molehills.)

The trouble with all these explanations is that they explain a major event (the possible failure of the Clinton presidency) in terms of relatively trivial causes. It's like saying that a roomful of monkeys hitting typewriter keys at random could produce a New York Times poll showing the president with an approval rating under 40 percent.

Clinton's own explanation is that he is the victim of a culture of cynicism, skillfully exploited by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. Though I don't agree with this explanation, at least it has the merit of proportionality. Cynicism is a powerful force; in a culture of cynicism even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would have had failed presidencies. But unfortunately for this theory, Americans don't yet suffer from a generalized cynicism, even though large numbers may be cynical about Bill Clinton in particular.

Now, I have absolutely no connection with the Washington press corps. So let's see what an amateur's hand can do at providing a proportional explanation for Clinton's problems.

I make three assumptions: (1) that voters have both economic and cultural interests; (2) that in difficult economic times voters worry more about economic than cultural issues; and (3) that in good economic times they worry more about cultural issues.

Clinton got elected because the economy was in trouble during much of 1991-92. The voters blamed George Bush, and they decided to replace him with someone who would fix the economy. Clinton was not exactly their overwhelming favorite, getting only 43 percent of the vote; but the anti-Bush vote was in excess of 60 percent (Ross Perot getting about 20 percent). Critics of the Bush campaign fault him for not having exploited cultural issues, e.g., Clinton's support for gays in the military. But economic issues were in the saddle in 1992; as is normal in such cases, cultural issues had a day off.

It is now two years later, and the economy is in relatively good shape. In other words, Clinton has done the job he was hired to do. By any reasonable measure, we would have to judge his presidency to be a great success.

Some may object that the expanding economy is not the result of anything Clinton did; that it had already begun to expand during the last months of Bush's term; that Clinton just happened to be lucky. But this is a quibble. When voters are unhappy with the economy and they change presidents, they do not do so out of motives of intellectual curiosity. They don't change horses because they want to conduct a scientific experiment that will determine with mathematical precision the causal connection between presidential actions A, B, and C and economic consequences X, Y, and Z. No, they hope that changing horses will lead to a comfortable ride. As long as the desired outcome is achieved, they could care less whether this is the result of scientific decision-making, pure good luck, or a miraculous intervention from heaven.

So Clinton's administration has been a success when measured by the main promise he made when running for office; he has carried out his contract with the American people. But if so, why are so many ready to fire him? Why does his successful presidency appear to be teetering on the brink of failure?

The answer, I submit, is to be found in assumption number 3 mentioned above, namely, that in good economic times people turn their attention to cultural issues.

This would be no problem if the public were in agreement with Clinton on such issues. They would then say, "He's good on the economy, and he's good on the culture too. Aren't we lucky to have him?" Unfortunately for the president, the public does not agree with him on cultural issues. They say, "Sure, he's been good for the economy; but it isn't the economy that's worrying me right now. It's the culture, stupid!"

Whatever Clinton may be in his heart of hearts, he is perceived as being a liberal; or at least he is seen as married to the liberals--"married" in the metaphorical sense and perhaps in the literal sense as well. But the public is convinced, and is becoming more convinced daily, that liberals are wrong on cultural issues: wrong on morality, wrong on religion, wrong on family, wrong on sex, wrong on education, wrong on crime, wrong on the underclass, and perhaps even wrong on race.

There are four possible situations facing a liberal or semi-liberal Democrat running for president: (1) bad economy, Republican in White House; (2) good economy, Republican in White House; (3) bad economy, Democrat in White House; (4) good economy, Democrat in White House. If my analysis is correct, Clinton--or for that matter, any other liberal Democrat--can get elected only in situation number 1, the case that prevailed in 1992.

If the national Democrats are determined to remain faithful to their religion of cultural liberalism, they will have to resign themselves to winning a one-term presidency every twelve, sixteen, or twenty years. The Republicans will vacate the White House for four years whenever there is an economic downturn in the year or two preceding an election. Otherwise they will be permanent occupants.