By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
February 15, 1999
I've been asked by a lot of people since the Senate vote Friday what I think about it. I wasn't surprised, of course, that he wasn't convicted. And, while it would have been historically sensible to have a real trial, rather than the abbreviated set of hearings the House Managers were limited to, I don't really think the outcome would have changed that much if there had been a real trial.
Both those voting for acquittal and those voting against it agreed in large measure on the basic facts of the case, which were summed up by Rep. Henry Hyde: "The issue here is whether the President of the United States has violated the rule of law and thereby broken his covenant of trust with the American people. This is a public issue, involving the gravest matter of the public interest. And it is not effected, one way or another, by the personal moral condition of any member of either house of Congress, or by whatever expressions of personal chagrin the President has managed to express."
However, from the point of view of those acquitting him, it was STILL a matter of Clinton's "personal moral condition" and his lying about his "personal moral condition." As a Democrat in the California State Assembly said in praising the acquittal, "A little sin never hurt nobody!"
And, it would appear, the Democrats in general agree with that statement. A little sin never hurt nobody. In other words, a 50 year old president who has his own personal little sex slave performing oral sex on him while he is on the telephone with a member of Congress preparing to send young Americans into the battlefield of Bosnia and then lying about to a grand jury is just a "little sin" that never hurt nobody.
If that is the case, then why did he lie about it? If it's OK with everyone, why didn't he just tell us back in January, "Yes, I had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and it's none of your business. My wife and I have believed in an open marriage every since we started living together back at Yale." If the moral level of a President has nothing to do with his ability to get elected or to lead a nation and the world, than why all the years and years of lying?
And, if it was only about sex, and sex is none of our business, what in the world was all that talk of censure about? As Henry Hyde said, that Democrat Censure Resolution was pretty strong. It said:
It is the Sense of the Congress that -On January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath, prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, faithfully to execute the Office of President; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the President set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him,
Be it resolved That:
1. The President made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;
2. The President wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth;
3. No person is above the law, and the President remains subject to criminal and civil penalties, for this conduct;
4. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this Joint Resolution, the President acknowledges this censure.
The DEMOCRATS agree that Bill Clinton "violated the trust of the American people" and deserves the "condemnation of the American people and the Congress" - but they still want him to remain president.
The DEMOCRATS say they believe his conduct with a subordinate employee was "reprehensible" but they don't think his reprehensible conduct is anyone else's business? So, then why did they urge that censure resolution be passed? If the conduct of the president is none of anyone else's business, how come the Democrats think he ought to be scolded for it?
And, it is the DEMOCRATS, in a bloc, 100% of them, with a small sprinkling of Republicans, who voted to acquit this president and "remains subject to criminal and civil penalties" for his conduct, once out of office.
What we have seen in the Senate was a 45% vote to convict for perjury and a 55% vote to acquit the President for perjury. The Vote on Obstruction of justice was 50% for and 50% against conviction.
These percentages remind me of another statistic that is a very sobering commentary on the state of America's culture and morals. About 30% of all pregnancies in America end in an abortion and one third of the live births are to unwed mothers. The abortions and unwed birth total about 51% of all pregnancies. That's about the same percentage of senators who voted to acquit the president.
What's the correlation? It would appear that those who are themselves involved in irresponsible sex can't bring themselves to be critical of the president's irresponsible sex, which in their minds "justified" his lying. These are the folks who tend to say "everyone does it." Quite possibly, with an apparent 50% ratio, "everyone" in their circle of friends IS having irresponsible sex and then lying about it.
So, how does a 50% liar ratio in our population fit with our system of government, as envisioned by the founding fathers? The Quakers considered licentiousness the greatest bane of good order and good government.
In his first inaugural address George Washington said, "The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." In his farewell address, after eight years of guiding the infant republic, George Washington admonished the nation, "It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions 'for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
In his 1831 trip to America, almost 45 years after Washington's Farewell Address, Alexis de Tocqueville, observed, "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America .... America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
And then, we are told by the New York Times, it is Bill Clinton who "is so furious at House Republicans over his impeachment, his advisers say, that he has vowed to mount an all-out offensive to knock off many of his foes and win back the House for Democrats in 2000." TV pundits claim authoritatively that it isn't the Senators who support an immoral, lying president who may be defeated in the year 2000. It will be those Senators who voted to convict an immoral, lying president who will be defeated.
Has America ceased to be good? If so, can we really expect America to continue to be great?
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com