Once More Unto the Breach ...

by Tom Jolliffe

Psssst! Did you hear that low rumbling? That's the sound of the indignant American citizenry fed up with the Beltway imbroglio! Oh, and look there! Did you see? That was a red postcard on its furious way to Capitol Hill, and its message is: end the impeachment proceedings! It is happening, America. The people's disgust with Monicagate has boiled over, been harnessed, and redirected into a political expression called "The National Mad as Hell Campaign." Beside themselves with what they feel is a waste of money and time, the MHC is "not going to take it anymore."

To its credit, the Mad as Hell, "sick-of-it" sentiment sits well with just about everybody. Clinton's affair is a tawdry, embarrassing national blemish; Republicans and Democrats alike regret the day Monica stepped forward. But what sustains the controversy and motivates each new polemic about the affair is a fundamental discrepancy on how to deal with bad news. While Mad as Hell prefers to sweep it under the carpet, others have the discipline to take it to the curb. Righteous rhetoric? Indeedy. Just as sanctimonious as every pro-Bill expression you've ever seen.

"We didn't ask to know"

The kill-the-messenger slogan that animates every Clinton defense is emblematic of our culture of deniability. This rant blames the media and the impeachment inquiry for bringing ugly facts to light. It is a view that overlooks the first truth of American broadcast and print journalism: the media is our whore. The American public gets what it craves, and while we may grow tired of the scandal, to slam the media is to misdirect the contempt. Just as the pro-choice ranks recoil resentfully from the ugly reality of abortion, Clinton sympathizers won't associate their disgust for an activity with the person responsible for it.

"I voted for a President, Not a Husband!"

In the September 21, 1998 Time, Molly Ivins takes up the Clinton affair in a hackneyed gripe called "The Chattering Class Should Just Let Go." She admits that she doesn't want a president who lied under oath, but observes that the lies"still stem from the President's sex life, which is none of our business, thank you." So just like that the stipulations of our national charter take a backseat to a perverted invocation of the right to be left alone. Even more incredible than how a healthy economy gives the president license to perjure himself is how scores of Americans feel that Clinton's behavior doesn't warrant an impeachment.

"This is totally a non-issue"

Clinton's soaring job-approval ratings make clear that many Americans don't relate his impropriety with the performance of presidential duties. That bedroom behavior became his office behavior is glossed over, as if arranging rendezvous in White House corridors is precisely the sort of conduct for which we are paying him. If history is any guide, Clinton is ripe for a boot. As Ann Coulter points out in her recent book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, the grounds for impeachment in this country are not and never have been limited to strictly criminal offenses. Thirteen federal judges and senators throughout our nation's history have been tried for behavior less scandalous. Coulter, a University Law alumna, notes that the Constitution's "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause holds the president to standards independent of any criminal proceedings. The Republicans, after all, aren't attempting to jail Clinton.

"It's nothing new!"

Any time you raise the idea of presidential standards of conduct, Clintonphiles will haul out their own argument of precedent. Ivins says, "Setting aside the number of perfectly good Presidents we would have lost in the past had some sort of sexual hanky-panky been the standard for judging who was fit to lead us, what do we think we are doing here?" It is a canard that the extra-marital affairs that permeate chief executive history justify President Clinton's malefic conduct. Where society of years past had neither the wherewithal (willing testimonials from the female participants) nor the necessary outrage (fueled by accounts of irresponsibility) to conduct their own respective investigations, ours - thanks to the media - is fully aware of the president's misbehavior, and some find it difficult to ignore the consequences. The Clinton faithful subscribe to a discouraging school of compromise, the essence of which Ivins articulates: "Yes, it would be highly desirable if the President were someone of magnificent political skills and a great moral leader...but so far, we've only found one Lincoln." Eminent character, evidently, is just a once-every-century sort of thing, so let's resign ourselves to taking the politically adroit sexual creeps and throw "moral" benchmarks to the wayside. This stance reveals Ivins et al. to be admitted weaklings; they recognize the transgression but refuse to require more from our "leaders."

"It's a twisted witch-hunt"

An enormous piece of the Clintonian fan-base is the so-called Generation X, whose loyalty to the president is perhaps of the most disturbing variety. The younger set's habit of speculating on the repressed (or obsessed) sexuality of those leading the inquiry shows a feeble-minded fascination with pop-psyche tripe. The trend to conjecture on Mr. Starr's own deviancy is everywhere from a Rolling Stone survey of pop stars (among America's Important Voices were Marilyn Manson and folk-artist Jewel) to the University's own Daily. It should be said, though, that a description of Clinton as a contemporary Arthur Dimsdale is accurate; both are lying, cowardly men and masterful public speakers. (Ken Starr, on the other hand, is not a maddened practitioner of the occult. He does, however, share Roger Chillingsworth's deliberate methodology.)

But let's throw the Clinton camp a bone. Has William J. Clinton really harmed anyone? America has a history of deference to the individual. We hold paramount the prerogative to do as one pleases, an idea rooted in Jefferson, Locke and Mill. The libertarian social policy - boundless personal freedom restricted only by the rights of others - resonates happily with this publication, but also embodies the essence of Clinton's defense. The president's non-apology suggested that he hadn't done wrong and that it was time to move on: "I acted improperly. But that\'s not what America is about." He wants us to believe that he still jibes with the American sensibility that preaches the "don't tread on me" philosophy. In fact, Clinton does jibe with the sensibilities of many Americans, for these reasons: a booming economy, falling crime rates, a "Pax Americana," not to mention that he is a regular Joe. Furthermore, there is something to be said for compassion and forgiveness. Some of Clinton's supporters can forgive and forget, in addition to the multitudes who "just don't care." Yet neither is an acceptable stance. To protest the impeachment process is to show some critical shortcomings as American citizens, namely, a failure to respect a bare minimum standard of presidential behavior. If we stash each scandal in the "personal" drawer and turn away, we discredit the presidency. As our most visible foreign policy leader and domestic decision-maker, the president must be expected to at least strive towards probity in all facets. As it happens, some gross offenses have been committed, leaving our elected leaders with two choices: they can take measures that might imbue the presidency with respectibility, or they can close their eyes and be "mad as hell." MR

This article was published in the 9 December 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 5).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.