On Clinton, Hypocrisy & Me

when the moon faded to blue she walked to the ocean and, fully dressed, entered the water by Chrisseserville on Flickr.

Says Sara: "...'presidential accountability, the United States as a moral example for the rest of the world to follow...' If you can explain to me how you voted for Clinton and still believe in the above statement without sounding like a hypocrite, I'll join your group."

Well, first of all Sara, I believe uncouth use of cigars in the Oval Office and cover-ups resulting therefrom do not necessarily present the same degree of threat to the nation as, oh, I don't know, leading an administration that allegedly leaks our own intelligence assets to the press during a time of war? But we're not sure about that of course, because, as the special prosecutor put it, he had sand being thrown in his eyes by the object of his investigation.

That said, you have a fair point, as the President serves as national point man for morality in some sense and Clinton, seemingly, failed on that count. Again, however, to my way of thinking, you've got to look at this all as a question of degree.

Would you rather have a President who cheats on his wife or one who seeks to cheat on the Geneva Convention by changing the very definition of torture and, in any case, codifying torture into law? One who disparages and insults the Oval Office or one who disparages and insults half a continent specifically ("Old Europe") and almost the entire world generally by saying, essentially, "do it our way or you're irrelevant"? One who misleads his family and the country about a matter of the heart or an entire family of nations about one of life and death for thousands of Coalition troops and innocent Iraqi civilians?

More to the point regarding your challenge, however, Sara, as opposed to simply saying "Oh, well, at least he was better than the other guy!" I think you've got to look at it in a "render unto Caesar..." kind of way. Or at least I do. Clinton failed his family morally perhaps, but I do not believe in my heart of hearts that he failed the country or the world in a similar manner. The distinction between man and mantle is not at all minor.

Which is not to say Clinton made no mistakes. He himself chided his failure to intervene in Rwanda. He rued his inability to make peace in the Middle East. I suspect mistakes were made in Kosovo, but any mistakes were made during a mad rush to save a population, a Muslim one at that, from an ethnic cleansing at that point in time then in full swing.

I don't know, Sara, whether you come from the left or right side of the equation. But this much I do know. At a certain point in time one need look inside one's own heart and ask these questions: Does a pragmatic approach to idealistic objectives constitute a moral breach if an unreconstituted idealistic approach is destined to fail politically? Does immoral personal conduct that breaks a personal trust rank on a same scale with state conduct that breaks a global trust?

Clinton, as far as I'm concerned, knew none of us were perfect and wanted us all to be better; and to to be better together. And Bush? Well, with Bush there's no room for us to get better because he's already the best. He doesn't believe he's made any mistakes. He is already perfect. And we, as a country, are trapped by that perfection whereas Clinton's imperfection and his own striving to be better helped make us all better.

And maybe that's why I would choose Clinton over Bush in a heartbeat. Because if this is the best we can be, I want none of it. That would be about the saddest thing I could imagine.

At the end of the day, I guess, I doubt I can prove to you that I'm not a hypocrite. To some extent I believe we all are. As with "threats to the nation," as with "morality," hypocrisy is and always will be measured in degrees, not by its presence or absence. And, that, perhaps, is exactly the voice of the Lost Center I so desperately miss: the voice that embraces the myriad shades of gray that reside within us all. Every time we deny that truth in ourselves and in those who lead us, we step one step closer, not to failure, but to a failure to be better.

Comments

[Sara]

Thank you for the response. Please allow me to retort.
You suggested this Lost Center group of yours should allow discussion and promote bipartisanship. However, you then compared Bush to Clinton and chose who you believe is the lesser of two evils, not that you really think Clinton is all that evil. Personally, if I had to choose, it would be neither. I see them both grossly abusing their presidential powers; one to lie to his own people by covering up a sex scandal that no one really cared about. It was the fact that his first instinct was to lie instead of own up to his mistakes. Would you trust that man to be alone with your girlfriend, your money, essentially your future? (Side note: isn't he the Real reason Jerry Springer became popular??)
The other, I think, is fooling himself more than the country. People voted for him because he wouldn't back down on his ideals. It's extremely annoying and, well, debilitating to this country that he's sticking to his guns at the moment, but that's what we asked for after Clinton. We went from one extreme to the other.
Now, all I can think is that we're left with a bunch of born-again Christians. It was okay to mess up, smoke up, rape, and murder to protect our own skins with Clinton as a figure-head, but we can now redeem ourselves and millions of Middle-Easterners by dropping morality bombs with Bush. The deaths of others will only make our mission stronger and more worthwhile. Let us not forget that this country was founded by the religiously persecuted, no matter how much we spout separation of church and state.
Honestly, I find it very difficult to be bipartisan. If your group encounters political discussion, it might be a better idea to ask for a respectful discussion of the topic rather than name-calling and belligerence. Let's be sportsmanlike:
"Don't let your journey be defined by history, let your journey make history."
I'm hoping for a better future leader and, dare I say it, discerning voters.
But Please, not another Clinton or Bush.

[Meg]

I'm wondering why on earth one would presume "the President serves as national point man for morality in some sense". Clinton has always cheated on his wife ... Kennedy did ... the count of immoral men in political office is staggering. People don't vote based on morality ... it's a democracy, and we are NOT a "moral" nation. People vote for those who tell them what they want to hear (and avoid seeing all evidence to the contrary proving that the word don't match the action...). Sorry to be cynical, but it's the truth. If people voted for the men and women who were really moral, who really put action to their words ... would we have much to complain about in politics? The movie PRIMARY COLORS made one great point - that it takes going fully immoral to get elected, so you can do some real good, but, by the time you get there, you're ... well, a Sith Lord.
Peace and love to all we struggling humans with souls, hearts and true morals ... which hopefully means we mess up a lot, thus testing ourselves and theories at all times. :)