A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy.

Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents.

However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats.

The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.”

In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.”

However, Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listening in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval.

Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.

Public Divided Over Internet Monitoring

The public is divided over the government’s monitoring of internet activity in order to prevent possible terrorism: 45% say the government should be able to “monitor everyone’s email and other online activities if officials say this might prevent future terrorist attacks.” About as many (52%) say the government should not able to do this.

These views are little changed from a July 2002 Pew Research Center survey. At that time, 45% said the government should be able to monitor everyone’s internet activity if the government said it would prevent future attacks; 47% said it should not.

Young Differ on Principle, but Less on Practice

Younger Americans are more likely than older age groups to prioritize protecting personal privacy over terrorism investigations. Among people ages 18-29, 45% say it is more important for the federal government NOT to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. That view falls to 35% among those ages 30-49 and just 27% among those ages 50 and older.

There are smaller age differences when it comes to the specific policies in the news this week. When it comes to whether the NSA tracking of phone records is acceptable, nearly the same share of 18-to-29 year-olds (55%) say the program is acceptable as those ages 65 and older (61%). Younger Americans are as divided as the nation overall about whether the government should or should not monitor email and online activities in the interest of preventing terrorism.

One-in-Four Following NSA News ‘Very Closely’

Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest.  Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.

Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all.

As with most news stories, interest is far higher among older Americans than the young: one-in-three (33%) Americans ages 50-and-older are following news about the government tracking phone records very closely. Among those ages 18-29, just 12% are following very closely, while 56% say they are not following closely at all.

Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners.

Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice.

So far, public interest in a trio of controversies connected to the Obama administration has been limited. Roughly a quarter (26%) of Americans say they are very closely following reports that the IRS targeted conservative groups. About the same number (25%) are tracking the Benghazi investigation very closely, and even fewer (16%) are very closely following news about the Justice Department subpoenaing phone records of AP journalists.

The new survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 16-19 among 1,002 adults, finds that 37% of Republicans are paying very close attention to the IRS story, compared with 21% of Democrats and 25% of independents. And the Benghazi investigation continues to draw much greater interest from Republicans (34% very closely) than Democrats (18%).

A historical review of previous controversies involving White House or cabinet officials finds that these levels of public interest – and the partisan divide in attentiveness – are not necessarily new. Previous scandals – such as the Lewis “Scooter” Libby case during George W. Bush’s administration or the “Pardon-gate” scandal at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term – received similar levels of public attention, and were generally more interesting to those in the opposition party.

The IRS Targeting Controversy

Overall, 42% say the Obama administration was involved in the decision to target conservative groups. Fewer (31%) say that the decision to target conservative groups was made by IRS employees without administration involvement, while 27% offer no opinion.

Not surprisingly, opinions about this are highly partisan. Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans (69%) say the administration was involved in the IRS’s decision to target conservative groups, compared with just 12% who say the decision was made by IRS employees. By contrast, just 21% of Democrats say the administration was involved, while 54% say IRS employees made the decision to target conservative groups. By a 44% to 28% margin, more independents say the administration was involved in the IRS decision than say it was not.

Those who followed the IRS story at least fairly closely (50% of the public) express similar views about the administration’s involvement: 49% say the administration was involved while 35% say it was not. But partisan differences are wider among this attentive segment of the population; fully 78% of Republicans who have followed the story believe the administration was involved in the decision to target conservative groups, while 63% of attentive Democrats say the decision came from IRS employees.

AP Phone Records Controversy

The public is of two minds when it comes to the Justice Department’s decision to subpoena the phone records of AP journalists as part of an investigation into the disclosure of classified information. Slightly more disapprove (44%) than approve (36%) of the DOJ’s actions.

Criticism of the DOJ is substantially higher among those who are paying attention to the story. By a 55% to 35% margin people who have followed reports about the AP phone records at least fairly closely disapprove of the DOJ’s actions. Attentive Republicans are particularly critical: they disapprove by a 66% to 28% margin.

Past Administration Controversies

The Pew Research Center has been tracking public interest in news stories for more than two decades, and while each political scandal is unique – and the list is hardly comprehensive – the level of public and partisan interest in the current affairs is largely consistent with prior events.

At their peaks, about a quarter of Americans very closely followed controversies involving Alberto Gonzales (22%), Scooter Libby (27%) and Karl Rove (23%) during George W. Bush’s administration. All three drew more attention from Democrats than Republicans.

The “Pardon-gate” controversy at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency was followed very closely by 28%, with far more interest from Republicans (42%) than Democrats (24%).

The exception to this partisan gap was the public’s first reaction to the Monica Lewinsky story. An early February 1998 survey found 35% following very closely, with high levels of interest across party lines. However, the partisan gap in interest in allegations against Clinton increased during impeachment proceedings later that year.

A 57% majority say elected officials just get caught more often because they are under greater scrutiny. About two-in-ten (19%), on the other hand, say elected officials have lower moral standards than ordinary Americans, according to the latest national survey conducted June 9-12 among 1,002 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post.

Among the 19% who attribute the scandals to lower moral standards among elected officials, most (13% of the public) say that when people get into positions of power, they tend to lose their moral standards, while 4% say that politics attracts the kind of people who have lower moral standards.

There are only slight differences in opinion across political and demographic groups. Each attributes the number of sex scandals more to the level of scrutiny faced by officials than to lower moral standards by at least a two-to-one margin. For example, 55% of men and 59% of women say that elected officials involved in sex scandals get caught more often because they are under greater scrutiny.

There also is no difference in opinion between those following the current scandal involving Rep. Anthony Weiner very closely and those following this news less closely. Weiner has acknowledged sending sexual messages and photos to at least six women online.

Overall, 12% reject both of the options offered, answering neither or giving other reasons. Among those who offer an explanation, the most frequently cited refer to elected officials’ ego or arrogance.

Amid new revelations of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI’s job ratings for handling the scandal have plummeted. Only about one-in-ten (12%) say the pope has done an excellent (3%) or good job (9%) in addressing the sex abuse scandal; 71% say he has done a poor (44%) or only fair (27%) job.

The pope’s ratings for addressing the continuing scandal have declined sharply since April 2008, shortly after his visit to the United States. At that time, 39% said he had done an excellent or good job in dealing with the abuse scandal, while 48% said he had done only fair or poor.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted April 1-5 among 1,001 adults on landlines and cells phones, finds most Americans (74%) have heard either a lot (29%) or a little (45%) about the pope. Awareness of the pope is nearly as high as it was in April, 2008, just after Pope Benedict XVI’s high-profile visit to the U.S., when 84% of the public had heard something about the pope.

Among those who have heard at least a little about the pope, Catholics express more positive opinions of the pope’s handling of the abuse scandal than do Protestants. Nonetheless, Catholics have become more critical of how the pope has addressed the issue: 59% give him only fair (31%) or poor (28%) ratings in the current survey, up from 40% in April 2008. Catholics who attend church at least once a week are more supportive of the pope’s performance than those who attend church less often – though negative ratings among both groups have risen since 2008.

Protestants are more critical than Catholics in rating the job the pope has done addressing the sex abuse scandal. About seven-in-ten (72%) give the pope only fair or poor ratings, up from 46% in 2008. There is little difference between the views of white evangelical and white mainline Protestants. Religiously unaffiliated Americans are the most critical of the pope’s handling of the abuse scandal: 86% say the pope has done a poor or only fair job addressing the situation.

Following his first visit to the United States as spiritual leader of the world’s Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI is viewed more favorably than he was a few weeks before his trip. Currently, 61% of Americans say they have a favorable impression of the pope, up from 52% in late March.

Views of Pope Benedict’s outreach to other faiths have shown substantial improvement. Roughly half (51%) of those who have heard at least a little about the pope say he has done an excellent or good job with respect to his interfaith efforts while just 29% rate his efforts in this area as only fair or poor. In late March, the public was evenly split in assessments of the pope’s promotion of relations with other religions in March (39% excellent or good vs. 40% only fair or poor).

Opinions of Pope Benedict’s handling of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal, an issue raised by the pontiff several times during his visit, are more mixed. About half (48%) who have heard something about the pope rate his efforts in addressing the scandal as only fair or poor, while 39% say he has done a good or excellent job in this regard.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, was conducted April 23-30 among 1,000 Americans; it was conducted shortly after the pope’s April 15-20 visit to Washington D.C. and New York City. The survey finds a dramatic increase in the proportion of Catholics expressing highly favorable views of the pontiff. Nearly half (49%) of Catholics say they have a very favorable opinion of the pope, up from 36% in the late March survey, conducted March 24-29. Overall, positive opinions of Pope Benedict among Catholics have risen from 74% to 83%.

For analysis of the press coverage of the pope’s U.S. visit, see the accompanying report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “During U.S. Papal Visit, Media Focused on the Shepherd and His Flock“.

Benedict XVI and John Paul II

Pope Benedict’s image among Catholics remains somewhat less positive than Pope John Paul II’s in 1996, after he had served nearly 20 years as pope. At that time, fully 93% of Catholics expressed favorable views of Pope John Paul II.

However, just as many Catholics now express very favorable opinions of the current pontiff as did so of John Paul II in 1996 (49%).

Pope Benedict is viewed more favorably by both Catholics who attend church regularly as well as those who do not; in fact his image has improved the most among the less observant. Among Catholics who attend church weekly or more often, 57% now give the pope a very favorable rating, up from 49% a month ago. Among those who attend less often, 41% now have a very favorable opinion of the pope, up from 25% in March.

Better Grades for Interfaith Outreach

The pope receives much better ratings than he did in late March for promoting good relations with other religions, and the change has been particularly striking among Protestants – especially white evangelical Protestants – and Catholics who attend church infrequently.

By roughly two-to-one (49%-25%), Protestants who have heard at least a little about the pope say he has done an excellent or good job in promoting positive relations with other religions. In late March, just 32% said he had done an excellent or good job in handling interfaith outreach, while 43% rated his efforts as only fair or poor.

The proportion of white evangelical Protestants who say Pope Benedict has done an excellent or good job promoting in relations with other faiths has increased from 32% in March to 57% currently. White evangelicals now have somewhat more positive views of the pope’s efforts in this regard than do white mainline Protestants (57% vs. 47%); in late March, the two groups offered similar assessments of how well the pope was doing in promoting good relations with other religions.

Overall, 70% of Catholics familiar with the pope express positive views of his efforts to foster good relations with other religions, up from 64% in late March. Most of the improvement has come among less observant Catholics (up 12 points); there has been less change among highly observant Catholics (up three points), who already gave the pontiff high marks for his efforts in this area.

Pope Faulted for Handling of Abuse Scandal

Americans view the pope’s efforts to address the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church far less positively. Catholics express more positive opinions of the pope’s handling of the abuse scandal than do Protestants. Even among Catholics, however, only about half (49%) of those who have heard at least a little about the pope say he has done an excellent or good job in addressing the abuse scandal.

There are wide differences in opinions about the pope’s handling of the abuse scandal among highly observant and less observant Catholics. Highly observant Catholics, by a margin of almost two-to-one (60% to 33%), give the pope a positive assessment on this issue. Less observant Catholics are more critical of the pope’s handling of the sex abuse scandal; a plurality (48%) says he has done only a fair or poor job, while 38% rate his efforts positively.

Among Protestants, white evangelicals rate the pontiff’s handling of the church’s sex abuse scandal more positively than do white mainline Protestants. Nearly half of white evangelical Protestants (45%) who have heard at least a little about the pope say he has done an excellent or good job in dealing with the scandal, compared with 32% of white mainline Protestants.

Views of Pope’s Ideology Unchanged

While overall impressions of the pope have improved over the course of the past month, there has been little change in the public’s assessment of Pope Benedict XVI’s ideological leanings. Nearly half of Americans (47%) say he is conservative, a number virtually unchanged from 45% in late March. Notably, somewhat more highly observant Catholics view the pope as conservative than did so in late March (71% vs. 62%). There has been a smaller change in the views of less observant Catholics; 55% currently view him as conservative compared with 53% in late March. Among Protestants, 42% say Pope Benedict is conservative, up from 34% in late March.

The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal has American parents talking with their children about everything from whether the President lied or should be punished, to broader discussions about values and sex. Parents of younger children wait for their kids to start these conversations, while parents of teenagers are as likely to bring up the subject themselves as are their teens.

Many parents, particularly those of teenagers, say that the scandal is leading to more family discussions of politics in general. But significant percentages of these same parents say that the scandal is leading to a loss of respect for politicians among their children. Further, while few see the scandal harming their children’s moral development, many parents of younger children worry that it will tarnish their kids’ views of government.

Most older children and teenagers are also talking amongst themselves about Clinton and Lewinsky. But schools and churches are reported to be relatively quiet on the subject. Few elementary or middle school parents say that the controversy has been discussed by teachers or at religious school or services. Only half say their high school age children have talked about it with teachers, and just one-in-four say it was discussed in Sunday school.

The aspect of the story of most interest to children what will ultimately happen to President Clinton. Teenagers are more often reported to be amused by the allegations against Clinton than disturbed by them. Many parents of younger children say that their 8-to-10-year-olds are confused by the controversy.

Even though many parents have talked about the subject with their children, the news media — especially TV — is providing young people with most of their information about the scandal. Nearly 40% of parents of younger children say they have been more careful about what their children are watching on the news since the release of the Starr report. As many as 21% of teenagers read at least part of the Starr report and even more watched the videotape of Clinton’s grand jury testimony, according to their parents.

As with opinion about the scandal itself, partisanship colors even parenting on the subject. Children of Republicans talk more about the Clinton scandal to family and friends and are said to be suffering more disillusionment with politics than the average child, while the exact opposite is said to be true of children from Democratic families.

These are among the results of a nationwide survey of 597 parents who have one or more children between the ages of 8 and 17. Conducted September 19-23, 1998, the survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Scandal Draws in Kids

The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is capturing the attention of American children, especially teenagers. Parents of high school age children have discussed the controversy with their kids at least as much as they have talked about the Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa home run race and more than a host of other news topics ranging from terrorist attacks to the cloning of sheep. Only schoolyard shootings have generated more discussion between teens and parents. The survey results suggest that there is less discussion of the scandal between parents and younger children because many parents wait for their youngsters to bring up the subject, rather than initiate a discussion themselves.

Among parents with 14-to-17-year-olds, 29% say they have discussed the scandal a lot with their teens, compared to 13% of parents with 11-to-13-year-olds and only 6% of parents with 8-to-10-year-olds. Although parents of teens spend more time talking about most news stories with their kids than do parents of younger children, the gap is greatest for this controversy.

The scandal is spurring some parents — particularly those of high school students — to spend more time talking about politics with their children than they did before. Fully 43% of parents of children over age 13 say they have discussed politics with their teens more since the news first broke; 33% of parents with children between ages 11 and 13 agree, along with 22% of parents with younger children (ages 8 through 10).

Teenagers are also reported to be more interested in the scandal than are younger children. Almost half of parents of teens describe their children as at least fairly interested in the scandal. In contrast, 57% of parents of 8-to-10-year-olds and one-third of parents of 11-to-13-year-olds say their children are not at all interested in the controversy.

Among parents of young children, 70% say that their conversations about the scandal are initiated by their children. This compares with only 45% of parents of teenagers. With teens, parents are just as likely to bring up the topic themselves as to wait for a question (47% to 45%).

Clinton detractors talk more about the scandal with their children than do Clinton supporters. A quarter of those who disapprove of the job Clinton is doing (24%) discuss the scandal a lot with their kids, compared to 12% of those who approve of Clinton’s job performance. Evangelical Christians also discuss the scandal at higher than average rates.

Overall, 41% of parents say they have spent a lot of time talking to their kids about school shootings. Nearly one-third (30%) have talked a lot about the McGwire-Sosa home run race.

Parents and kids have talked about terrorist attacks against Americans almost as often as they have talked about the Clinton scandal. Half have talked about terrorism a lot (14%) or some (37%). Parents have spent relatively less time talking about cloning, local campaigns and elections, and the problems in Russia.

Kids also talk about the Clinton scandal with their friends and classmates, according to their parents. Nearly half of parents say their kids have talked about the allegations against Clinton with their friends and classmates. Only 17% say their kids have not discussed the scandal and 36% are not sure. Again, older children are discussing the scandal at much higher rates than are younger kids. Fully 65% of parents with teenagers say their teens have talked about the issue with friends. This compares with 29% of parents with kids between ages 8 and 10.

Just as Republican parents are more likely to talk about the scandal with their children, they report that their youngsters are among the most likely to be talking about it with friends and classmates.

The scandal is being addressed by some teachers, especially at the high school level. Half of parents with 14-to-17-year-olds say the subject has been discussed by teachers. Far fewer parents of middle school and elementary school students are aware of the topic being addressed by teachers — only 28% and 15%, respectively say their children’s teachers have discussed it.

One-in-four high school age children have discussed the scandal at Sunday school or religious services, according to their parents. Fewer than one-in-five children under age 14 have heard about it at church. The children of Evangelical Christians are much more likely than others to have discussed the matter at church.

TV the Main Source for Kids

Parents say children of all ages are getting most of their information about the scandal from television news, although few children actually watched the live broadcast of Clinton’s nationally-televised address or his videotaped grand jury testimony. More than half of parents say television news is the primary source of their children’s information about the scandal, followed by discussions with parents and friends. Fewer than 10% of children get most of their information about the scandal from newspapers or the Internet, according to parents.

Although more than half of parents say the scandal has had no effect on the amount of television news their children see, parents of youngsters ages 8 to 10 express more concern than parents of teenagers (38% vs. 13%, respectively say they are being more careful). Similarly, while more than half of children age 11 and older have access to the Internet, few parents say they are more careful about allowing their kids to go online since release of the Starr report.

Most parents say their children have not seen any of the more graphic presentations of the scandal in recent weeks. Just 30% of parents of teens say their children saw part of Clinton’s videotaped testimony, while only 21% say their kids had read part of the Starr report or saw Clinton’s nationally-televised address. Among younger children, even fewer saw either of these broadcasts or read any of the Starr report.

Talk Is About Morals, Values

When the scandal comes up in conversation between parents and children, most families talk about topics like morals and values, parents’ views about Clinton, and whether or not Clinton lied. Across all age groups, at least half of parents have used the scandal to talk to their children about morals and values in general, and nearly as many have discussed their own views of Clinton and whether Clinton lied.

Many parents of teenagers have also talked about other aspects of the scandal, including whether Clinton should be punished and whether he should be forgiven, although these topics come up much less frequently with younger children. Indeed, 46% of parents with children between ages 8 and 10 say they have not discussed the Clinton scandal at all with their youngsters.

Not surprisingly, a child’s age is a major factor in whether or not the sexual aspects of the scandal have come up in conversation. Fully 58% of parents have talked with teenage children about whether Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky, compared to 40% of parents with children between ages 11 and 13 and just 17% of parents with children between ages 8 and 10. Across all age groups, fewer than one-third of parents have discussed the impeachment process with their children.

Parents who don’t like Clinton tend to discuss the president’s troubles with their children more than do parents who are Clinton supporters. Three-quarters of parents who disapprove of Clinton (74%) have talked to their children about whether or not Clinton lied, compared to just 47% of parents who approve of the way Clinton is handling his job. Similarly, 62% of parents who disapprove of the president have discussed Clinton’s apology with their children, compared to 33% of those who approve of Clinton.

The different types of scandal-related topics that have been discussed do not vary substantially between mothers with sons and mothers with daughters. Among fathers, however, some topics came up more frequently with daughters than with sons. Fully 60% of fathers say they have discussed their own views about Clinton with their daughters, for example, compared to 48% of fathers who have discussed their views of Clinton with their sons. Similarly, 40% of fathers have talked to their daughters about whether Clinton and Lewinsky had sex, compared to 31% of fathers who have discussed the topic with their sons.

How Will It End?

At least half of parents say their children are interested in how things will end up for Clinton. This is true across all age groups — 50% of parents with youngsters between ages 8 and 10, 60% among those with children 11 to 13, and 69% among parents of teenagers.

Younger children are most likely to be confused by the scandal story: 44% of parents of children between ages 8 and 10 say their kids are confused, compared to 36% of parents of children between 11 and 13, and just 24% of parents of teenagers. One-third of parents say their teenage children are amused by the scandal.

At the same time, most parents say they are more upset than their children by the scandal, while roughly one-third of parents say neither they nor their children are very upset by the allegations against President Clinton.

Consequences for Kids

Parents see the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal manifesting itself in different ways for different age children. Parents of high school students are more likely to express concern that the scandal has caused their child to lose respect for politicians, while parents of elementary and middle school kids are more likely to see the controversy as harmful to their children’s attitudes about politics and government more broadly.

Half of parents with a teenager (51%) say the scandal has made their child less respectful of politicians. Overall, Republican parents express more concern about this than do Democratic parents (53% vs. 33%, respectively). Most parents say they had more respect for the president when they were young than their children do now. Fully 60% of parents of older children and over half of parents of children between the ages of 8 and 13 say this is so.

About half of all parents say that learning about the issue will not affect their children’s attitude toward politics and government. The remainder are split on the nature of the lesson. Some 30% of parents of children ages 8-10 think the scandal will harm their children’s interest in politics, while a similar percentage of parents of teens believe it may help.

Not surprisingly, Republicans are more concerned about the long-term implications of the scandal for the next generation of adults than are Democrats. Republicans think the issue will be more influential on their children’s interest in politics than Democrats do. Moreover, Republicans think the scandal will be more detrimental to their children’s views of government than do Democrats (44% vs. 27%, respectively).

Overall, parents say that the impact of the scandal on their children is more political than moral. Over 60% of parents of children under the age of 14 and 70% of parents of older children say that learning about this issue will not make much of a difference in their children’s moral development.

Three-quarters of all parents believe that the best lesson for their children would be for Congress to take some action against President Clinton, but they are split as to what that action should be: 37% favor impeachment; 39% favor a formal reprimand or censure. There are clear partisan differences among parents’ views concerning which measure would serve as the better lesson: 60% of Republicans prefer impeachment; 49% of Democrats favor censure.

The Whitewater scandal is sapping public confidence in Bill Clinton. Almost as many Americans now disapprove, as approve of the way the President is handling his job, and there is a growing belief that the Whitewater case is disrupting the government’s ability to deal with major policy issues such as crime, healthcare reform, and the economy.