"Everyone loves a stud."
—Louis de Bernieres
So the majority supports Bill Clinton. Platonists and small-d democrats well know, however, that majorities have been deadly wrong in the past. In 1790, the majority of Americans supported enslavement of Africans. In 1870, a majority believed the only good Indian was a dead Indian. In 1940, most here supported degrading racial segregation while a huge majority of Germans heartily cheered on Hitler.
More than 50% in the US today are feeling contented and economically comfy. With each new poll we learn “it’s the economy, stupid,” and ethics be damned. While 80% say they don’t trust their President, they fear his removal from office will damage their material well being. With bulging high yield, socially unconscious Wall Street-based IRAs or 401ks, and leftovers for an addition to the house, a car for the 16-year old, and a vacation in Cabo, the American majority snickers “morality, schmorality.”
Point One — The events of the past several years prove Clinton to be arrogantly and dangerously reckless or simply deranged by priapism. Let’s see: he nearly loses the presidential nomination after fornication with Jennifer Flowers and a vast right-wing conspiracy maintains its ever vigilant pursuit of his dirt. Then, after being charged in a civil suit with sexual harassment related to indecent exposure, he cannot resist temptation to commit adultery again, this time in our White House with a person roughly the age of his daughter Chelsea, who may have been upstairs at the time. Yes, of course, among the mentally ill we find criminals who want to be arrested and successful community leaders who, feeling unworthy, act out in ways to be apprehended, then ousted.
Point Two — No, this is not a private matter. As a teenager in high school, Bill Clinton initiated his search for stardom, dedicating himself to acquisition of power and the limelight. Nobody forced him to select life in a fish bowl, which all wealthy “elect” in Washington and Hollywood suffer. Bill Clinton and his admirers support a fawning, corporate news media that takes us with him onto the Kennedy yacht or to a “secluded” beach where he hugs Hillary and throws a stick to his brown lab. His clique does not whine when TV takes us with him on his jogging and golf sessions, or to Chelsea’s orientation at Stanford, or for our favorite, the exit from church, when he clutches the Bible in one hand and Hillary in the other. The Clintons — like all politicians and film stars — know this adoration of their private lives is vital and they clearly cherish it.
This sexual liaison would not have been private even if it had happened at a private residence or rented motel room. Obviously as well, our feigned or real lives behind closed doors do affect our public lives; only the deluded will argue otherwise. (Remember George McGovern’s wise decision to dump Thomas Eagleton from the ticket upon learning of the very private shock treatments his running mate had received for recurring bouts of depression?) Domestic arguments (about money, fidelity, relatives) may affect any of us at work, even the person with power to order bombing raids anywhere on earth and our youth to kill or be killed.
In response to those who argue that we are stooping and snooping, along with Kenneth Starr, to sexual McCarthyism, let us stipulate that anyone’s fornication would indeed be worthy of privacy if it had been based — beforehand — in honesty, as was Governor Jerry Brown’s trip to Kenya with singer Linda Ronstadt in the 70s. Of course, the Machiavellian liberals will retort that, no married person can be elected who publicly declares a sexually open marriage. Granted! And we, the people, reject honesty as being of value in our culture, always preferring to live the lie and hear it as well.
Point Three — Any schoolteacher or principal, staff sergeant, newspaper editor, hospital administrator, postal supervisor, or Navy captain found to be practicing the behavior which created this scandal would be fired. Admit it. Let us also note that the US Senate recently removed two federal judges after learning of their perjury. Remember as well the female bomber pilot forced to resign her commission because of adultery and lying about it. Clinton’s defenders say the standards for President are different. Apparently, yes — they are significantly lower. The majority (of those polled) agree and the US Senate, therefore, will hold Clinton to a lower ethical standard, although he appoints judges and commands fighter pilots to fly into combat.
Point Four — We must demand of all our friends who defend Bill Clinton that their children and grandchildren hear their arguments. We want these youth to learn that when caught in a “peccadillo,” misdemeanor, or minor offense (like stealing candy) it is not only acceptable to lie and cover-up but it is also smart to do so. The message to children from the Machiavellian Clintonites is that lying is a requirement in this world, particularly to gain and maintain power: “darling child of mine, the hip, cool, good life of the powerful justifies cheating on exams, lying on resumes, invoices, and tax returns; it also justifies the daily, obsequious prevarication needed to get there.”
Point Five — We believed the Left supported sexual harassment law as a step forward, as a progressive, humane addition to our judicial system. Our faith, however, is shaken by the Clinton defense. These cases depend on truthfulness from witnesses called, just as do most civil and criminal cases. Honesty in court is the key to our goal of legal justice. Does not Clinton’s successful sneaky testimony in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit — his “common sex lie” — set a precedent for testimony in future courts? Will our working or studying daughters, sisters, mothers, wives be denied relief when harassers claim the “Clinton Exception” if quizzed about patterns of behavior? By the way, sexual harassment often occurs in private; the only way to legally resolve the issue is to ask about events that happened behind closed doors or when others were not watching.
Point Six — Comfy liberals and other Clinton defenders may concede every point noted above then argue that he’s done such a great job we need to let him be. We grant the novel phenomenon: six years of low unemployment with low inflation. Yes, families of the middle class bring home $3,000 more than they did in 1992; yes there is no world war; yes murder rates are down; and yes the Stock Market is kicking butt.
We also know, however, that Clinton, kowtowing to the dominant selfish libertarian mentality in America, has supported regressive retrenchment hurtful to the working class that Clinton’s regime, like all since the 1970s, has dropped from the rolls; it’s out of the loop determining who has a job, a house, food, and health care. The game, clearly in the hands of multinational corporations, currency dealers, the global market and Alan Greenspan, rages on regardless of who occupies the White House. So his Republicrat policies may grease the wheels a little — but, give us a break — as cheerleader for the winning team he deserves all this admiration? Clinton has nothing to do with our hot economy. Federal Reserve loose money policy and computer mania (boosting jobs) and lowest bidder world labor market, coupled with worldwide overcapacity (keeping prices down) create a brief boom period for 60% of America.
Meanwhile he is applauded by liberals for bombing Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The contented hypocrites who, in youth, took to the streets against the Vietnam War and in 1991 voted against the Desert Storm travesty of George Bush, now wave the flag for Clinton’s ridiculously futile, illegal and immoral military strikes. His indignant protectors look the other way, as well, when he continues the crime-inducing joke of a drug war. The Democratic President’s anti-drug efforts now include US Army paratroopers eradicating marijuana on tiny Caribbean islands and 200 American Green Beret advisors in Colombia who are there, in reality, to check the largest Marxist guerrilla force in the world. And contented liberals will blink as he spends $6 billion just to begin work on an updated version of Star Wars missile defense.
Idealistic progressives 20 years ago, middle-aged Clintonites now ignore or support their man’s expansion of the death penalty and his simultaneous safety net cutbacks. Liberals who now believe (along with Time magazine) the threat to privacy is far more serious than the lack of justice in America, conveniently forget (or remain blissfully ignorant of) Clinton’s anti-terrorist and drug war measures significantly expanding police power for invasive searches. Our contented friends also disregard the increasingly spirit-numbing corporate invasion of our media, roadways, schools and home telephone lines.
With this scandal, we notice comfy social liberals (many of whom never cared previously for political debate) rabid in defense of this president who has made FDR’s party the darling of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Are they not aware or do they not care that he has done nothing to challenge the increasingly gross gap between rich and poor? But, hey, we’ve never had it so good, right?
Point Seven — Can you figure the feminists on this issue? We cannot. The founder of Ms Magazine, Gloria Steinhem, author Betty Friedan, along with Anita Hill and the leaders of the National Organization of Women staunchly defend Bill. Unconcerned about the lesson sent or precedent set by Clinton’s office behavior and perjury, they rally for the President. All seem to agree as well that every boss is allowed free groin and breast gropes, at least one free penis exposure, plus regular sex at work from a “consenting” first tier, probationary subordinate.
These hypocritical women have joined forces with James Carville and some of our own liberal friends who have ridiculed Paula Jones’s appearance, style of speech, and poor economic background. Clintonian feminists, who viciously ripped Clarence Thomas for telling dirty jokes and lobbied to keep him off the Supreme Court for that reason, now reject Paula Jones as low class trailer park trash. They insinuate she is a stupid pawn of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
This is the same elite crowd who brought out self-esteem studies to explain why brilliant lawyer, Anita Hill, changed jobs twice to remain in the employ of filthy-mouthed Clarence Thomas. Hill spoke so articulately and appeared so proper, they announced “We Believe You, Anita.” Not Paula Jones. Not Jennifer Flowers. Not Kathleen Willey.
And we’ve all heard our contented liberal friends — both male and female — attack Monica Lewinsky as this driven, stalking bitch who propositioned the hard-working president. Clinton, of course, being a typical male, could not be expected to resist a disrobing 21-year old, for like dogs and baboons, the sexually aroused male is no longer to blame for his behavior. This perspective on White House activity of 1997, blames Lewinsky, who showed her underwear thong to the most powerful politician in the world. This argument is a cousin to that made in defense of date rapists: that it was her fault, that she wanted it, that he — once aroused — could not help himself; this sexist rape defense claims that if a female doesn’t know all men are predators and actually enters his car or apartment, she’s either an idiot or obviously wanted it, or both.
Evidently reckless, juvenile, sexist behavior and civil suit perjury are excused because this fellow appointed Madelyn Albright and Ruth Ginsberg to high office, while defending abortion and pushing family leave law. Some of the more honest feminists say, “OK, he’s scum, but they’re all scum, and he’s the best of the lot.”
Most women, like their men, will continue to blame Flowers, Jones, Willey, and Lewinsky. This majority actually admires Bill more today, because… because? … because he’s a stud who cheated on Hillary?
Point Eight — Hillary Clinton, the woman more popular than her husband. She is a brilliant corporate lawyer and she knows her husband extremely well. Such circumstantial evidence tells us Hillary, too, is a blatant liar, for she was the first to deny the facts and go on the attack after the scandal broke.
However, this is not what is weird about the status of Ms. Clinton today. What we don’t get is the rise in popularity for the articulate feminist as selfless wife who stays with her philandering husband. We grasp that patriarchal men appreciate Hillary’s behavior; they see it as a model of the good wife, this negation of self, this devotion. But we are confused by the reaction of women who, we believed, want egalitarian marriage. What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander at all?
Hillary Clinton, who now eats (with class of course) her words of ridicule aimed at the late Tammy Wynette, gains increasing empathetic female adulation as she stands by her man. Whatever!
Point Nine — And the President’s popularity? As the economy was terrific long before the scandal broke, we’re guessing why his popularity increased after the Monica story hit. Is it that he proved to the world that he never was under Hillary’s thumb, and hey, he’s been cheating on her since the get go? Let’s not deny we’ve heard jocks mutter: “I’d do the same thing if I was married to her.” Not only do such sexists fear strong articulate women, they also admire Bill Clinton more than previously now that he’s a proven adulterer. Hey, he’s one of the boys, after all.
And now our favorite. Is Bill Clinton more popular with women because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Polls imply that is the case. Watching the White House reception for British Prime Minister Tony Blair a day or two after the scandal broke encouraged this perception. Women in line, when their turn came, could not get close enough to Clinton, clutching his hand and forearm, not wanting to let go, hoping for a hug. Such behavior mirrors that of high school girls who pursue the cruel playboy (“player”) who has already crushed the hearts of six girls after having his way with them. This wild sexist boy is for the teen girl extremely exciting, where the decent, egalitarian is boring. Girls invariably choose the charismatic jerk, the challenge, the one they alone will tame.
Could this syndrome be at play among women of America as they ponder their First Man? We wonder if those who fawn so in Clinton’s presence, would themselves like to be isolated, at night, in a room with this hunk. Meanwhile, sexual harassment, hazing and machismo are easily as strong in our schools as they were under Reagan and Bush, with “woman” becoming the favorite pejorative word among young men.
Point Ten — One meets those who are “sick of it” and who “simply won’t discuss it.” Yes, you too hear women and men these days cut out or terminate the Clinton scandal discussion at its inception. Are theirs the same short attention span that two years ago produced the “I’m sick of O.J. — that’s all that’s on TV” comments? Do certain men seek to quiet the discussion because they see it as letting the cat out of the bag — that is, the male prerogative double standard of some 25,000 years? Do some women freak when the topic comes up because it confronts them with the likelihood their husband is (becoming more popular) by cheating on them, at this very moment?
And so, my fellow Americans, let’s cleanse ourselves of this brilliant and eloquent yet dangerously reckless, shameless, priapic liar. Get him out of there. We promise: Al Gore’s ideology is within a millimeter of Clinton’s. Your soaring portfolio will be just fine. Trust us. That is until the global economy crashes in three or four years.