The president's alleged misdeeds:

Thursday, January 29, 1998

Thursday, January 29, 1998

The president's alleged misdeeds:

CLINTON: Our fixation with leader's character is unhealthy, illogical

By Francis Wilkens

Someone needs to defend the president. His cabinet, staff and party have, for the most part, been conspicuously stingy with their support since the allegations of his illicit affair with Monica Lewinsky surfaced. The press is having a field day. The people want blood. Where are the voices of moderation? I guess I'm it.

The media are falling all over themselves in quest of the Holy Grail of modern journalism: the incontrovertible statement of fact. Visions of being the first to verify allegations against the president are as alluring to members of the media as the visions any drug could ever be to any strung-out addict. Each and every member of the press secretly prays to be the one who digs up the dirt, locates the smoking gun or reveals the skeleton in the closet. The names Woodward and Bernstein echo in their heads like a mantra. But this mantra leads not to enlightenment; it leads instead to a promotion, a larger office, and God willing, a Pulitzer Prize.

In their frenzy to get to the bottom of things, they have failed to ask the most important question of all : "So what?"

Let's cut to the collision that follows the chase. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the accusations are true. Why should we care that the president did these things?

Neo-Puritanical voices of righteous indignation whine that the president of the United States shouldn't have sexual contact with his staff members. In other countries, doing so is considered a prerequisite of office. But not here. Our national code of ethics is muddled beyond recognition; the ownership of automatic weapons is legal but topless sunbathing at the beach isn't. All things considered, having sex with one of your underlings is probably a stupid thing to do. It demonstrates poor judgment and even some degree of arrogance. Some have equated an inability to keep one's pants on with an inability to be a effective leader. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why such deeds would or should nullify his ability to hold office. I have yet to hear anyone claim that Ms. Lewinsky was in any way an unwilling participant. Unless there are some vestigial "blue laws" in Washington D. C. prohibiting oral sex, their get-togethers seems hardly newsworthy to any but the most prurient of minds. It's really not our business.

Perhaps it is her tender age that offends. What if Lewinsky was 31, or 41 years old? On a similar note, what if the president was not in his 50s? Would the voices of moral outrage be less shrill? Perhaps this nation's repulsion is fueled by a displaced sympathy we feel for her parents upon their learning that their daughter had become an overnight sensation for all the wrong reasons. In any event, Ms. Lewinsky was well beyond the age of consent during the time she was visiting the president. Her age is irrelevant.

Perhaps it was the act itself. Would we care if future reports revealed that they had only kissed? Even today, oral copulation is, in the minds of many, a taboo act of perversity. In some states, it's still a crime. It carries with it, especially on this occasion, connotations of unilateral gratification and of a submissive or unwilling pleasurer servicing a dominant recipient. While such may often be the case, there is, as of yet, no reason to believe that these assumptions apply to the president's alleged connection with the staffer.

As of this writing, we have no reason to believe that the acts performed were given or received unwillingly. Any focus on the techniques involved reveals the dark side of our voyeuristic society. We are no more evolved than kids at a playground tittering at a dirty joke.

Perhaps it's the adultery angle that offends. Firstly, let's dispense with the silly semantical defense that "oral sex is not sex." Let's be realistic: oral sex is not sex only if you limit the meaning of the word "sex" to its biological definition. By all other intelligent standards, having oral sex with someone other than your spouse is adultery.

Adultery in the White House is no less wrong but no more a crime than it would be in any other house. No one can deny that, by conventional American standards, adultery is, for lack of a better word, bad. It is, in addition, a breach of one's marriage vows. But again, we must ask ourselves, "So what?" In a televised interview aired prior to his election, President Clinton told the nation in so many words that he was guilty of adultery. That didn't stop the American people from voting him into office.

The White House has been home to a fair share of adulterous presidents and first ladies.I don't know of any particular historical instance whether his or her indiscretions have had any effect on the president's ability to perform his duties. In other countries and cultures, adultery doesn't carry the same emotional baggage that it does here. Mitterrand is said to have welcomed an endless stream of female visitors to his home and office. Then of course there is our own JFK, whose conquests while in office have become legendary. Two wrongs don't make a right. But a thousand wrongs make a standard.

If there were some causal relationship between a leader's dalliances and his or her ability to lead a nation, then I would be the first to say he should either knock it off or step down. We know of no such relationship. Maybe we should follow Hillary's lead. She has, for her own reasons, decided to remain married to the president. Maybe it's a matter of convenience. Maybe it's expedient. Maybe she doesn't care.

Perhaps the sexual side of the story isn't as important as the cover-up. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, 61 percent of the respondees feel that the president should be impeached if he did indeed commit an obstruction of justice. Resignation is a far less bitter pill. Clinton will step down long before this push leads to that shove. Even if the president lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and asked Mr. Jordan to obstruct justice, again, I must ask: so what? He was only avoiding bringing shame on his name, his family, his office and his nation. Who wouldn't?

Accusing a politician of lying is not unlike accusing a cow of chewing cud. Lying, misleading and other forms of verbal legerdemain are critical tools in any politician's skill set. How do you think they get elected in the first place? Campaign pledges are little more than lies waiting their turn to become broken promises.

Remember "Read my lips?"

Remember the Republican's "Contract with America?"

Before we crucify the man for denying his involvement, let's ask ourselves what we would do under similar circumstances. Would you openly volunteer to someone whose singular professional goal was to see your head on a stake that you had engaged in an affair with a staffer? Would you try to get others to keep it a secret? Why, with all the professional prostituting and lying that goes on in Washington do so many journalists, pundits and politicians expect the president to live up to standards by which they themselves would and do so miserably fail? Answer: Because, he's the president, and bringing him down is the ultimate achievement. Of all the trophies one might accumulate during one's career, the president's head would be the most prominently and proudly displayed.

The national gasp that followed reports that the president may have obstructed justice in an effort to keep his peccadillo under wraps is born of our national naivete. We live in a political system that relies on dishonesty to keep the country intact. Our legislators swap votes like kids swap baseball cards. Instead of, "What is best for the country?" the more common question they ask themselves is, "What is best for me? What will keep me rolling in junkets and limousines?"

I grant you, my position here is a cynical one, but how else do we explain our leaders' inability to affect meaningful campaign reform? How else do we explain seven-figure campaign expenses for a five or six-figure job? Pork barrel politics are widely despised, but no one ever complains when the federal teat rolls into their town.

Lying is as much a part of politics as dirt is of mud. We need to get past our naive indignation and consider the consequences of changing horses mid-stream.

The president of the United States is the most powerful man on the planet. Consequently, he is also one of the world's most sought after targets. It is simply impossible for us to conceive of the workload, stress and demands that come with that job. Every word he says and everything he does is subject to intense scrutiny. He is under 24-hour surveillance. He is the sworn enemy of millions. Several of his predecessors have been shot for holding that office. As the commander-in-chief of our military, he controls the most powerful arsenal in the history of civilization. The stroke of his pen affects the welfare of our own people and others around the world. He enjoys very little free time and even less privacy.

I do not apologize for the president. I do not excuse his indiscretions. I merely question whether the path down which we seem to be heading will lead our nation to a better place.

Consider what we have gained during his two terms in office. His most notable achievements involve defending victims of oppression and discrimination, whether they be gays in the military, Kurds in Iraq, the starving masses in Somalia or the victims of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. He has improved access to health care and increased the minimum wage.

Under Clinton's administration, we've witnessed the American brokered Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, NAFTA, GATT, the Brady Bill, deficit reduction legislation, a national service program and curbs on the tobacco industry's virtual autonomy.

Each and every one of these accomplishments has been a hard won feat of endurance and political savvy. After all the gains this country have made under his leadership, are we really prepared to send him out on his butt because he asked a woman to not tell the rest of the world about their affair?

If you still believe in a place called Hope, spare us from the proselytizing, Puritanical judgments of those who are too near-sighted to understand the long-term consequences of undoing the president over a petty transgression.

Spare our nation's economy the loss of momentum it will suffer if we end up going through a mid-term replacement process. Spare us from partisan retaliation. Spare us from the embarrassment we will suffer in the international community.

Spare the president. Scold him if we must. Issue a letter of reprimand. Take away his helicopter for a week. But let him and this nation get back to the business of being America.