We’re hearing from lots of liberals, including Paul Krugman, that Clinton was more popular than Ronald Reagan according to the polls. This is true, but it means less than they think. First, as someone pretty deeply involved in the impeachment mess, I can tell you that a great many poll analysts believed that Clinton’s popularity from 1998 on was as much a product of the public’s exasperation with the impeachment drama than any actual fond feelings for Clinton. Telling pollsters you liked Clinton was a way to tell the government to “move on.” Indeed, if memory serves, when Clinton wasn’t under attack from us meanies, his popularity tended to drop. Second, the people who keep talking about how popular Reagan was tend to be TV talking heads who don’t want to talk about his unpopularity because it was his unpopularity which indicated his greatness. The Today Show crowd thought Reagan was nuts for talking about evil empires and for putting nukes in West Germany. It’s the conservatives who keep talking about the derision that he received from the media and intelligentsia.

Third, the fact that Clinton’s numbers were so high is a testament to the fact that Clinton desired to be popular more than he desired to be effective.

Clinton did do a few bold or semi-bold things. He signed Welfare reform in defiance of his base (and, hence, solidifying Reagan’s legacy further). He championed NAFTA (again: solidifying Reagan’s legacy further). He fought an air war in Yugoslavia (I’m not sure what that says of Reagan’s legacy). But with these and one or two pther possible exceptions, Bill Clinton was concerned with maintaining the affection of the public more than he was concerned with doing anything particularly special. I’d be delighted to argue that further, but my sense is this is one of these controversial things you can say about Bill Clinton and his “philosophy” of triangulation which kept his poll numbers high while losing the House, Senate and scads of state governorships and legislatures.

Nothing could be more different than the example of Ronald Reagan, who left the GOP much stronger than when he found it. Reagan was popular precisely because he had the brass to buck the conventional wisdom, endure the scorn of the intellectual class and the media. That’s why he’s more popular now than he was then; people only remember his bravery and his accomplishments. As time goes by, Clinton’s popularity may go up or down, but it will be the popularity of — to put it charitably — a character, not a leader. I doubt very much there are that many honest liberals who believe that Reagan’s place in history and in the minds of the American people will not outshine Clinton’s by orders of magnitude in the generations to come.

Update Stupid typo was fixed in first sentence.