Bill Clinton, Bushbashing And Impeccable Privacy

I was asked, "Why do you think this country is so divided today? Why is it that your neighbor–if you said you support the war in Iraq–why is it that your neighbor will call you a fascist or a warmongering pig? Why the over-the-top animosity, an almost visceral, irrational hatred like I've never seen before in this country?"

My answer was that I had no answer (which was shameful, since I was on talk-radio and had a large audience).

Does anybody else have an answer? I'd love to hear it. I have a few ideas of my own, particularly for the en vogue Bush hatred that permeates "blue state" life. But I'd love to know what you think: Why the animus toward Bush; and why the vitriol sputtered between liberal and conservative? Of course, as I've already noted in this blog, this sort of divisiveness and venom is not new; in 1968, Nathan Glazer wrote (as a liberal) that his cohorts were damaging their cause by calling Lyndon Baines Johnson "Hitler" and America the "Third Reich." Hate is old news.

I will however toss my 2 cents into the tin kettle, adding, for a moment, to the din that dulls the ears. And since 2 cents is pretty much all I have (it's true), some of you shall gleefully conclude that it is clear I no longer have any cents at all.

Reason #1: A person's private life is private, and is no one else's business at all.

This old argument should be at the tip of everyone's tongue, for it is the essential ingredient in the culture wars in America given to defend Bill Clinton during his first presidential campaign for office in 1991. Hampered by allegations that his personal peccadilloes might be cause for, well, pause, Mr. Clinton, his handlers, and the Democrats who endorsed him jammed in the American face the defense that "a person's private life need not affect that person's public role." Americans heard that "what goes on in a person's bedroom should be no concern of ours," especially if the person is competent and attentive in the duties assigned to him (or her). Quick thinkers immediately realized the fallaciousness and recklessness of this argument. For example, no American, I would think, would want to elect for president any man (for argument's sake) who was alleged to be going through marital troubles, particularly troubles incited by his roguish behavior. The consequences could be deadly. Could a president lead a country effectively if he were to be slapped with a declaration of divorce? Could a president attend to the country's needs while mired in a child-custody battle with an angry spouse? Could a president fulfill his duties to his nation while sued for sexual harassment; for abusing his powerful position to solicit sexual favors; for abusing executive privileges for procuring a mistress?

Alas, we all know what happened, at least, we all think we know. But there are some, many really, who believe that Bill Clinton was impeached for a trifle, for merely "lying about sex," which hardly matters in the grand scheme, or so it is alleged. Clinton's only offense was for lying about his private life before the prurient (and paradoxically puritan), probing eye of an overzealous right-wing conspiracy intent on dragging an impeccable (well, slightly peccable) president down.

But before we toss this aside as so much overwrought support of a tragic figure in some Greek play, it should be noted that the Clinton affair as defended from the start of his presidential career was utterly and dangerously packaged. You see, when the U.S. President assumes office, he is no longer his own. He is the incarnation of the body politic; the incarnation of the constitution. He is the electorate in the flesh; he is the uncommonly Common Man, the very body of every American. He is not his own even in his own rooms, surrounded as those rooms are by Secret Service agents intent on keeping the Incarnate Word (of the state) safe. He is surely least his own when he steps into the Oval Office (the office of sexual infamy in the Clinton years). Thus, the presidential member (so to speak) is also not his own to treat willy-nilly (forgive me). And it is worth pointing out (and no one else has done so, as far as I know) that the Secret Service is obsessively concerned about the details of any president's life, right down to the minute and the calorie (is the food poisoned?). One wonders then how it was that the Secret Service permitted Mr. Clinton to be so cavalier with the presidential phallus, placed as it was (many times?) between the jaws of a woman who, for all we know, could have been a particularly vicious biter. Had Ms. Lewinsky been the sort of assassin who enjoyed sabotaging presidential piece initiatives, perhaps we'd all now be reading the best-selling biography, "Re-membering Clinton."

No doubt, and here's the point, Mr. Clinton abused his power to ward off the protections of the Secret Service, telling them to turn a blind eye to his security, placing them in a position NO PRESIDENT has a right to demand. Mr. Clinton abused not merely his wife and Monica Lewinsky, he abused the Secret Service, and us.

In short, Mr. Clinton hardly lied merely about sex. He lied about his abuses which were not private at all, as he was not, as president, a private citizen. And of course he lied to protect the legacy of his notable political actions from wag-the-dog criticisms (but to no avail).

Hence, the Bush-bashing is all payback for the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Clinton. No, that's not it. It's really anger for having been wrong about privacy and its effect on national life. A man's private morality really does affect his public morality, which is a truth no one wants to hear.

Reason #2 tomorrow.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.