Monday, September 28, 1998
Clinton’s evasion of scandal breaches public trust
CHARACTER: Through the years, presidential lies persist to test
true strength of American support
In 1996, media polls told us that an overwhelming percentage of
Americans believed that Robert Dole was, in short, a great guy. He
was honorable, he told the truth; they would rather their children
grow up like him than like his opponent.
They proceeded to elect Dole’s opponent.
That opponent, namely William Jefferson Clinton, has now found
himself in a whirlwind of scandal. He has admitted an inappropriate
relationship, which he has previously denied, and he takes full
responsibility – but he blames Independent Council Kenneth Starr.
This is but one in a series of lies and deceptions from the Clinton
administration, a marathon of misleading interpretations and
blatant falsehoods.
Surprisingly, Americans admit these falsehoods, at least if you
believe the polls that Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather want you to
believe. During the 1992 and the 1996 campaigns, Americans believed
President Clinton was an out-and-out liar, but they decided that
was OK. They knew there were legitimate questions about his
marriage and hints that he was attached to criminal activity (the
Whitewater investigation put criminals, one-time associates of
Clinton, in jail).
But America decided that these things did not matter, that
character did not matter, so long as the man was getting the job
done.
Whether or not President Clinton is "getting the job done" is a
matter of debate, but the assertion that character does not matter
in evaluation of a president is in contrast to over 200 years of
the executive branch’s history.
Historical records of presidents are created by their images,
which mostly stems directly from their character, or at least the
character they convey to the American people. George Washington is
routinely referred to as a great president but because of his
leadership skills and not because of his policies.
In fact, most Americans are completely ignorant of Washington’s
administration, and his best-known advice (against foreign
entanglements) has proven outdated in the modern world. Washington
is "great" because his character was that of a great leader, the
ideal person to have been in charge of the beginning of the great
experiment called America.
Washington is not the only president whose image is created by
character traits. Why is Abraham Lincoln great? The Emancipation
Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address and the leadership he gave the
Union during its time of greatest discord are testaments to his
greatness.
What do we remember of Ulysses Grant’s presidency? We do not
remember his policies (as if people even knew what they were), but
the scandals of his administration.
Woodrow Wilson is not remembered for being the man who
introduced segregation to the federal level of government, but as
the intellectual who made the pursuit of American ideals the
cornerstone of our nation’s foreign policy.
Elementary school children learn of Franklin Roosevelt’s
Fireside Chats long before high schoolers learn of the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
John Kennedy is celebrated as the King of Camelot because of his
public image, not because of domestic or foreign policy (Bay of
Pigs, anyone?).
Has Richard Nixon’s effect on modern perceptions of the
presidency been due to his foreign successes (China), domestic
missteps (price and wage controls) or Watergate?
If the history of the United States has taught us anything, it
teaches us that 100 years from now, only the politically minded
will concern themselves with dissecting Bill Clinton’s often
schizophrenic policies. The mark each president leaves on the White
House transcends partisan politics and depends heavily on the image
of the man in which the American people believe. Believe it or not,
character does matter; it always has, and there is little reason to
believe that it never will.
Yet somehow, Americans have turned their backs on this
truism.
They have elected a man they do not respect, while they sent Bob
Dole off to test Viagra and get a tan. Why is this? Some claim that
it is because the nation is doing well right now.
Yes, but if people respect Dole more than Clinton, wouldn’t they
believe that the country would do better under Dole?
Some claim that it is because Clinton’s foibles make him seem
more like an ordinary American. Perhaps, but does it not seem
reasonable that most people would prefer a president they can
admire to one who might be more likely to swap dirty jokes over a
couple of beers?
Others claim that the American people have realized that
character simply does not matter.
Perhaps the American people do think that – but nothing could be
further from the truth. The Aug. 18, 1998 Los Angeles Times
headline declared: "Clinton Admits to Deception." Unfortunately,
this refers to but one lie in Clinton’s political life: the
Lewinsky affair. The headline does not refer to the avalanche of
deceit that has stemmed from this man dating back to 1992.
Remember, in his campaign Clinton labeled the economy "the worst
in 40 years", seemingly forgetting about the energy crisis of the
1970s. He complained of a $400 billion deficit; when he discovered
after his election that it was only $290 billion, he complained
that it was $50 billion higher than he expected. (In point of fact,
$290 is $110 less than $400, not $50 more).
When a pro-Bush ad claimed that Clinton’s spending would
necessitate tax increases for families earning $36,000 or more,
Clinton labeled the sitting president a "disgrace to the American
people" and adamantly declared that he would cut spending before
raising taxes; after his election, Clinton submitted a budget
proposal that raised taxes on families making $20,000 or more per
year.
This is the man who decried Bush’s Haiti policy as "racial
politics," then sought to defend that policy in court.
This is the man who claimed to have a brilliant "First Hundred
Days" program for his first administration, only to force his staff
to publicly admit that no such plan existed.
After Clinton occupied the White House, the hits just kept on
coming.
He accused Republicans of "starving kids," when the Republican
budget proposal raised student lunch programs higher than Clinton’s
own proposal.
He accused the Republicans of cutting Medicare; when CNN’s Wolf
Blitzer asked him during a press conference why he was saying this
when the Republican proposal in fact raised Medicare spending,
then, Clinton blamed the media.
President Clinton has repeatedly mis-characterized his
opponents’ positions in order to gain a political advantage. He did
not invent the politics of mud-slinging or demagoguery, he simply
elevated them to the Politics of Vilification. In our current
political climate, it has become easier to accuse your opponents of
attempting to starve people than to actually debate them on
cognitive issues.
Perhaps this rhetoric of expediency is the result of a
post-modern media frenzy, but Clinton has done as much to separate
politics from the issues as any figure in modern politics.
When historians look back on the 1990s, they will see a time
when the president of the United States did not have the people’s
respect, and that is clearly not a good thing.
Much of this country’s disillusionment with politics stems back
to Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam policy and Nixon’s Watergate cover-up.
When our leaders lie so continuously, not only about themselves but
about their political opponents, trust is not engendered. That is
more important in the long term than a percentage-point difference
in school lunch funding or $50 billion of a federal deficit. We
have lost trust in our leaders.
More disturbingly, Clinton’s reliance on mistruths as well as
his aversions to debating issues on substance betray a lack of
trust in us – the American people. He did not say it explicitly,
but it seems as though Clinton wants the nation’s forgiveness.
Perhaps he will get it. But unfortunately for Clinton, history will
never forget.
Strelow is the internal vice chairman of Bruin Republicans and
an Undergraduate Student Association Council (USAC) general
representative.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]