Monday, October 5, 1998
If Clinton cared, he’d step down
LETTERS: President’s insistence on continuing rule hurts
country, party
By Martin Chippas
Imagine this hypothetical, if you would. A man works in an
office somewhere. He’s a salesman, the best salesman his company
has. While he has run the sales department, it has experienced its
most successful in years ever. Then, one day, one of his former
employees files a sexual harassment suit against him. His company
stands behind him and he continues to work.
Then rumors spread that he may be having a sexual relationship
with a subordinate employee, this time a young intern. He’s asked
about it on trial under oath, he says it isn’t true. His boss asks
him if it is true, he wags his finger at him and says he did not
have a sexual relationship with that woman.
His friends and colleagues ask him if it is true, he tells them
it is not. They publically defend him. Then a tape turns up showing
him engaging in sex with the employee in question. Evidence also
turns up that he may have influenced others to lie and that he may
have tried to suppress evidence that showed he lied.
Does his boss decide not to fire him because he has been such a
successful salesman? Does he retain his credibility? Can he
effectively continue his job? If this man were president of the
United States instead of an average citizen should that make any
difference?
For the last nine months, the nation has been overwhelmed with
the question of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The media has been
consumed by the story of the president’s actions and especially by
the sexual details of his "inappropriate" relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.
The public seems to be split between those who have always
supported Clinton, those who have never supported him and those who
wish the whole thing would go away. The question of whether or not
President Clinton will be impeached will ultimately be answered not
by the public, but by Congress. Chances are the political will
won’t exist to put the country through an impeachment process
beyond the early stages, especially when the president continues to
enjoy high approval ratings.
And of course there remains the question of whether or not the
crimes Clinton is alleged to have committed are sufficient to
remove him from office. Congress really only has two choices within
their constitutionally defined powers, impeach or do nothing –
there really is no middle ground. It seems that the Clinton
presidency is destined to be like a bad case of food poisoning –
the only way to get rid of it will be to wait and let it pass.
Whatever one thinks about the validity of impeaching the
president, there can be no doubt that Clinton’s actions constitute
an amazing lack of judgement and ethics that have seriously damaged
his credibility and his ability to act as president.
Clinton didn’t just lie to the public, or the grand jury, or
even just his family – he lied to close friends and colleagues who
put their reputations on the line in defending him. How can he
expect them ever to do that again? How can he effectively deal with
Congress with his support seriously eroded? How can he act as a
president with this scandal looming over the remainder of his
term?
There are those defenders, of course, who still maintain that
this is only about sex, that other presidents have done it and that
it has nothing to do with his job.
Certainly the interest in the subject is augmented by the
details. It would not be nearly as interesting to many if this were
about his finances or campaign contributions. And yes, other
presidents have had affairs. But those affairs were not with
subordinate employees and not in the Oval Office.
This has nothing to do with adultery. If Clinton were unmarried,
lying under oath would still be illegal and having sexual
relationships with employees and trying to cover it up would still
be unethical. As Sam Donaldson of ABC News has frequently stated,
"There is nothing in the law that says lying under oath is perjury
unless it’s about sex."
The idea that Clinton’s actions are OK because anyone would lie
under the same circumstances simply doesn’t wash. If Clinton really
wanted to protect his family and reputation, he wouldn’t have
engaged in such irresponsible behavior. If he really cared about
how his family felt, he would have resigned long before this affair
continued to the point it has.
Maybe what Clinton did isn’t impeachable, maybe it is. But what
should really be asked is why everyone seems to think that Clinton
is so critical to the continuing existence of our republic. Does
anyone really believe that Al Gore could not do at least as
adequate a job as president?
If President Clinton really cared about getting the business of
the country done he would step aside and let Gore do it. Not only
would this benefit the country by putting this ordeal to an end, it
would benefit Clinton’s own party by giving them a better chance at
enacting their own political goals and giving them a huge advantage
in the 2000 presidential elections.
But it seems that Clinton cares more about his job than his
country or his party. This article is written by a Republican – one
who has no interest in seeing the Democratic party strengthened or
seeing a more liberal politician become president. But sometimes
what is best for the country as a whole is more important than
one’s own political interests.
It’s time for Clinton to realize this. Only he can prevent this
mess from going any further. When it is clear that a president may
have violated the law, Congress has no choice but to begin hearings
on the matter.
This isn’t just going to go away. Saying he’s sorry is too
little too late; it’s time for President Clinton to resign.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board