By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
August 17, 1998
We have experienced another weekend of non-stop punditry about Bill Clinton, what he might say to the Grand Jury today that could get him off the hook without putting him in what has been termed "Starr's Perjury Trap." According to the New York Times today "The president's senior advisers late Sunday secured his agreement to acknowledge to a federal grand jury on Monday that he engaged in an inappropriate physical relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but he will deny that he counseled her or anyone else to lie about their relationship, said an adviser familiar with the preparations for Clinton's testimony."
The mostly Sixties Generation hosts seemed in general agreement that (1) The President's Sex Life was none of anyone else's business (2)Now that it was a matter before the court, he could not lie to the Grand Jury. (3)However, he didn't have to answer questions posed by Kenneth Starr about any SPECIFICS of this sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky. (4)The American people are tired of all this. They are not interested in Bill Clinton's personal life. (5)Besides, all presidents have done the same thing.
This kind of comment tells us more about the talk show hosts than it does about the President's situation. We as a people are not interested in people's private sex lives? There are magazines totally devoted to other people's sex lives - especially if they are in the entertainment industry, the military, government or are wealthy businessmen. A decade ago a Democrat presidential hopeful, Gary Hart, was gleefully exposed by the media as having an adulterous relationship, and he had to drop out of the race.
Occasionally a plaintive voice on a talk show would ask something like, "Why does he need all this preparation is he is going to tell the truth?" The question wasn't answered. On at least one occasion when one Clinton apologist stated, as if it were fact, that President Eisenhower had "an affair" with his driver during the Second World War, another guest angrily objected. Even FDR, who was paralyzed from the waist down, was accused of "pursuing" other women. No one thought to asked how that was done by a paralyzed man.
It was observed that a growing number of Americans are suggesting Bill Clinton needs to resign or be impeached. And who's saying that? Mostly young people in their early thirties and younger. In fact, those just out of college seem to be taking the hardest line. A young reporter explained there is a lot of "tension" today in dating. Terms that didn't even exist twenty years ago - like "date rape" - color the entire relationship between the sexes and if any professor did to a student or intern what the president is accused of doing to Monica Lewinsky …or Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey … he would be immediately fired.
One or two people wondered about how you explain all this to the children. No one had a good answer to that question, either. In fact, before discussing the lurid details of White House sex, the anchors and hosts are beginning to suggest that the children been chased away from the TV set.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson looked solemnly into the camera lens and intoned, "There is a difference between private and public behavior." Two other ministers with him appeared to agree. I don't know what these three ministers have been reading lately, but the Bible I have indicates that the people Jesus Christ criticized the most harshly were folks who had a difference between their private and their public behavior. He called them "hypocrites."
Jonah Goldberg, Lucianne Goldberg's son, commented that there is a Federal Education Film, on Sexual Harassment in the Work Place, which is partially narrated by one William Jefferson Clinton in which he harshly condemns the very behavior that he is about to admit he engaged in.
How do you explain it to the children? Actually, it appears to be easier to explain this to the children than it is to explain it to people like Jesse Jackson or Geraldo Rivera. I called up a couple of my adult children to find out how they were telling my young grandchildren about the Clinton story. Mike Moore, a son-in-law who likes to explain complicated things to his children, said he would tell 11-year-old son Jeffrey: "There is evidence the President has had improper affairs with women who are not his wife. He was asked under oath when he promised to tell the truth about a young woman named Monica Lewinsky. He denied having sexual relations with the young woman, but apparently he did not tell the truth. If you do not tell the truth in a court of law that is called perjury. It's against the law. It's very bad because then you can't trust that person."
My daughter-in-law Grace Grooms said she'd probably tell the boys to go ask their father, but if she explained it would say that "The President had a girl friend and lied about it to his wife and in a court document. Basically, he took advantage of a young woman, lied about it and tried to get her to lie about it. The President did some things that are illegal and then tried to cover it up. He was dishonest and broke the law."
It's amazing how two young parents can get to the heart of the matter in seconds, when the entire Washington Press Corps talked all weekend and consistently ignored the real problem.
Several weeks at Church ago I was present when Gelinda, a young 20's something teacher, was explaining the Ten Commandments to a group of young children ages 4-8. She sat down on the floor, gathered the nearly twenty children around her and one by one began to explain in the simplest of terms what each of the Ten Commandments said and what it meant. The children were very attentive and fascinated with what she was saying as she used simple props to show what it meant to "have no other gods before me," "remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy," "Honor thy Father and Mother," "Thy shalt not steal," etc.
The children understood what she was teaching and were asking questions. I began to wonder how she would handle the one about adultery. When she got to it she got up, went over to a young father who was in the class that day, put her hand on his arm and said, "If I decided to go out with Justin's Father instead of my own husband, would that make Justin's Mother feel bad?" The little ones, especially Justin, looked positively shocked at the very idea and let her know that would be a terrible thing for her to do. "That's right," she said. "That would hurt Justin and his mother wouldn't it?" All the children agreed. "Heavenly Father said in the Ten Commandments that we should not do that." The children nodded. THEY understood that kind of behavior was not merely a "private" matter but would affect the children in each family, as well as the other Mom and Dad. How often is it adultery that has caused families to break apart and children to live in poverty?
If four and five years old can grasp the concept that committing adultery is a terrible thing to do, what is the wrong with the Washington press Corps and Bill Clinton? I think Grace summed the meaning of the Clinton Saga with the following observation: "It's really Sixties Philosophy versus Real Life."
The Sixties Generation is known for a philosophy that involved civil disobedience (including draft dodging and smoking pot), "free" sex without marriage, the use of lies to convince people their cause was just, and convinced themselves that their self-indulgent life-style was actually SUPERIOR to the foggy notions of their parents. Then this same group jumped on issues like legalizing abortion, feminism that included strict laws about sex in the workplace - without ever changing their basic free-love philosophies. The younger generation has found that the sex-in-the-workplace laws have really created a lot of tension in dating.
Somehow Bill Clinton seems to believe that as long as he pretends that he is supporting feminist causes, (Public behavior) he should be allowed to have sex with any female that his wandering eye lights on. (Private behavior.) But, women the age of Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky didn't live through the 1960s. Young men in that younger age group know that if they do what Clinton appears to have done, they will be kicked out of college or out of their job. Children of people who commit adultery eventually usually lose their family and live in poverty with one parent. For Clinton to claim he "cares" about poverty or children, while practicing behavior that damages his family, is hypocrisy.
Real life in the 1990s versus 1960s philosophy. What Bill Clinton could get away with as a thirty two year old governor, isn't flying as a haggard 52 year old president. In real life a powerful man asking a girl young enough to be his daughter to perform oral sex is disgusting. In real life, "suggesting" that "If I deny it and you deny it," (in legal depositions) that no one could prove it is encouraging that person to lie - especially if you happen to be that person's employer. In real life shaking your finger at the American people, clenching your jaw and telling people a lie convincingly eventually ticks people off. It's not a clever legalistic maneuver that will be admired - especially by those you have deceived with the convincing finger shaking performance. In real life, kinky sex, whether is be oral sex, homosexual or lesbian sex or whatever - is sex, not a legal maneuver.
In real life adultery and perjury by a married man isn't a "private matter." As Mike Moore says, "If you do not tell the truth in a court of law that is called perjury. It's against the law. It's very bad because then you can't trust that person."
When the people can't trust their President it is very bad. It appears that Bill Clinton has been hoisted on his own petard. And, folks, in a nutshell, that means Bill Clinton's hypocrisy is about to be revealed to the entire nation.
To comment:mmostert@originalsources.com