Clinton Scandal Focus Misplaced

by Matthew Buckley

It's been quite a three weeks for the nation. Since the alleged President Clinton­Monica Lewinsky dalliance first hit the news, the public has been treated to scandal coverage of the first order. The power of 24­hour news networks, the print media, and the Internet have been at our service to help us wade through the sordid morass of the Clinton sex files.

From the beginning of the coverage, there has been a perception that this was the media's big break with Clinton. Heavily criticized by many on the Right for not pursuing the Clinton Administration enough during earlier scandals, the media now seemed to lay into Clinton. Though differing explanations emerged, the prominent one was that the President's slick maneuvering through previous scandals had irritated the press. Now, with allegations of actual presidential dishonesty, as well as revelations of previous dishonesty to the press regarding the Gennifer Flowers affair, the press was not going to give the President a free ride.

It seems a pretty plausible claim. Clinton (and for that matter, Vice­President Gore) is sneaky, and likes to play the "literal truth" game. Witness his explanation of his statements in the infamous 1992 60 Minutes interview. At that time, he said allegations of an eleven­year affair with Gennifer Flowers were false, but conceded that he had previously "caused pain to his marriage." In his deposition in the Paula Jones trial, he admitted to the affair. It doesn't take a philosophy class in logic to sense that the two statements are inconsistent.

Clinton's explanation shows his adeptness with literal truth. Apparently, the reason he denied an eleven­year affair with Flowers is that the affair wasn't eleven years old. Now, it would seem to you or me that this avoids the substantive issue of the question; generally, a question regarding the existence of an eleven­year affair is dealing with the existence of the affair, not the timespan. Clinton stays literally truthful, but avoids the real question ... such is the "literal truth" game.

Clinton is surely not the first to do this; while you or I may not do it on a very consistent basis, I'll bet we all have at one time or another. I'll also bet that we have all been caught at one time or another. You know what? When you get caught at that sort of thing, your victim's assessment is that you are dishonest.

Even better, suppose you repeat friend A's denial of a claim to friend B and friend C, and then find out that while some trivial aspect of the way you phrased the claim was incorrect, the substantive part of the claim is true. If friend A knew, and counted on, your explaining his case to friends B and C, you might well feel used.

Given this, we can see why the press might be annoyed with Clinton, for this "literal truth" game has been played consistently from the Press Briefing Room for six years. From Flowers to Whitewater, Travelgate to the campaign contribution scandal, the press has been, at worst, told the literal truth only; at best, they have been used.

So, the relentless media push on this current Clinton scandal is understandable. Yet if they believed that hard investigative reporting of White House shenanigans would hurt President Clinton this time, they were clearly wrong. No matter how many hour long Investigating the President specials CNN runs, it seems that the Lewinsky affair is the "Little Scandal that Couldn't."

Yet the press, for all its high­minded condemnations of Clintonian morality, certainly cannot look to anyone but itself for the public's current lack of concern, since their focus has in some ways created the problem. The implications of the Lewinsky affair for Clinton have boiled down to two separate issues. The moral issue of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky is quite different from potential presidential obstruction of justice and subordination of perjury.

Now, the moral / sexual issue is by far the most appealing, ratings­wise. Surely, more people are interested in the sordid details of what went on between Clinton and Lewinsky during the throes of passion than what may have transpired in their later conversations. Thus one can understand why media coverage of the Lewinsky affair begins, proceeds, and ends almost totally over questions over the sexual allegations.

The problem is that the issues with teeth are those of subordination of perjury and obstruction of justice. They are the ones that people actually seem to care about; polls suggest that the public does not care about the sexual charges. If Clinton lied, the public says, then he should go ... if it is just an affair, then so what?

The result has been a press focus that is distinctly not persuasive to the American people. Market forces demand sex, the public hears of the sex, the public doesnt care about the sex, so Clinton isn't seriously hurt by the sex. While people are aware of the potentially more serious charges, these issues have not received the serious focus they deserve.

The distinction is crucial, since it appears more and more likely that the sexual allegations are true and provable, while the perjury and obstruction charges could well elude investigators. Clinton supporters in all this have several key facts they will need to explain away if they are to put together a coherent story in which Lewinsky and Clinton had no sexual relations. Why so long before a clear presidential denial of such relations? What explains the hours of tape of Lewinsky talking to Linda Tripp? Perhaps most crucial, what explains the 37 visits by Lewinsky to the White House, after she was transferred to the Pentagon by a White House manager concerned about Lewinsky's zealous attempts to get close to the President?

The attempts so far to exonerate the President of these sexual allegations all bear trademark similarities. There are the ad hominem attacks on Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp. There are the appeals to the wonderful merits of the Clinton presidency (yes, it is apparently more than simply staying out the way of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan). There are the mysterious rumors of the "right­wing conspiracy" out to get the President. What do all these have in common? While interesting questions, they are clearly not particularly relevant to the fundamental questions of what Clinton did. The fact that the President's defenders do more attacking of Clinton's accusers than disproving their allegations is quite telling.

But for all the press coverage the sexual charges have received, it will be helpful for Starr only so far as it provides links to the other allegations of wrongdoing. There is a real risk here that the questions involved in these matters will reduce to legal discussions to which people will not listen, or (worse) to which people will not care. This raises the question: can the press be counted on to cover these charges with as much vigilance as they have the sexual issues?

There is some evidence that the press will not be reluctant to go after these issues; in fact, in some cases it appears many in the press have leapt to conclusions on the basis of flimsy evidence. The Dallas Morning News, for example, scooped the story of certain Secret Service officials being subpoenaed for their knowledge of the President's affairs, only to find that crucial details of their story were not entirely accurate.

Such errors of reporting should not occur, and the press certainly has a special responsibility in this case not to put forth scurrilous allegations, given its nature. However, these previous difficulties, Presidential disavowals and denials, mounting criticism from the Left, and potentially declining ratings could combine to create an environment where important issues will not be covered. It happened with Whitewater, it happened with the campaign finance violations, and it could happen here.

This is where conservatives (and Republicans) have an important role. Up to now, the Right has wisely stayed quiet, letting Clinton simmer in the face of criticism from his own party. Their role in the coming weeks should not be to directly attack Clinton, but to monitor the developing situation and make sure the press remains vigilant in its quest for answers. All signs indicate that the public cares more about the perjury and obstruction charges; they may watch the news for the titillation, but the titillation is not so relevant when they decide their opinion as to Clinton's fate. The Right should do all it can to make sure relevant information is available to the public. MR

This article was published in the 11 February 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 7).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.