I wanted to stay far, far away from commenting on the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, because I knew that the double standard of media scrutiny of the deceit and dishonesty there ( in contrast to the media’s adversary stance during the Republican convention) would drive me to drink if I thought about it long enough to write coherently. And so I shall stay away, except for this one infuriating topic, which is broader and more significant than the convention itself.
No political party that cares sufficiently about the ethical values of integrity and honesty, as well as responsible leadership, would feature Bill Clinton as its “rock star” speaker. That the Democrats did, and that the media and the public generally gave them a pass for doing so, confirms that Clinton’s corrupting influence on the American culture continues. Recent polls indicate that he is the most popular political figure in the country today, and Democrats will no doubt cite that as justification for inviting him to speak. To the contrary, it shows the damage that he has done to the values of the nation, and how wrong the Democratic party has been to aid and abet that damage.
Bill gave a good speech, as he usually does. There is no way to know how much of it he believes or meant, for Clinton is a recreational liar: he likes lying. He’s good at it, and he does it at every opportunity. In 2008, on The Ethics Scoreboard, the slower and more formal predecessor to this blog, I made Clinton the first (and as it turned out, sole) admittee to the David Manning Liar of the Month Hall of Fame, writing in part that…
“…from this point on, the former President and current First Spouse hopeful is exempt from competition for the Ethics Scoreboard’s Liar of the Month title. It’s just too easy for him. Clinton’s facility with the unnecessary and blatantly obvious lie first came to national attention when he famously declared that he “didn’t inhale” when he smoked pot as a college student. The many silly and trivial lies that have followed were occasionally punctuated by serious whoppers, such as his perjury in the Paula Jones trial and “I did not have sex with that woman,” but they don’t figure in the Hall of Fame voting. No, the comments that have enshrined Bill Clinton are those like this month’s statement on the campaign trail that Hillary has done very well in the primaries so far when one considers that she is “operating on a shoestring.” This is a masterpiece of silly lying. Hillary Clinton has raised more money than any of the presidential candidates of either party, 140 million dollars. This is a matter of public record. Now, for most Liars of the Month winners, this kind of statement would represent the pinnacle of blatant lying, a career zenith. But not Bill Clinton: this is a way of life for him. Truth, lies, half-lies, deceit…all are just interchangeable tactics according to a grand-master’s careful calculation of the benefits of fooling a target audience for just long enough to get a desired result.”
Clinton also gave a selfish and self-indulgent speech, reportedly exceeding the scripted version by almost 40% and pushing all other speakers later into the evening’s program. These qualities—inflated self-importance, lack of respect and consideration for others, and shamelessness—are other traits of the political sociopath, as is Clinton’s undeniable charm. As a sociopathic leader, he is a stunning success. His smug demeanor and chipper cockiness at the podium is that of a cheater who got everything he wanted, and regrets nothing. Clinton sent so many unethical messages by his presence in a prime time slot at the convention that it would take a tome to detail them all. They begin with “the ends justify the means.” Others include “Don’t let them tell you otherwise: cheating works,” “You can lie your way out of trouble, if you’re a good enough liar,” “Power justifies everything,” “Rules are for suckers” and “You can fool most of the people all of the time.” There are more.
The Democrats have either swallowed the myth that Clinton was good for the country or just knowingly facilitate it. Had it not been for Bill’s lies about Monica Lewinsky and the related cover-up, Al Gore would have breezed to the Presidency. Had Clinton resigned, as he should have and as an honorable man with the best interests of the nation at heart would have, Gore would have won even more easily, as the incumbent. Instead, to protect himself against the rightful consequences of his own conduct, Clinton required staffers and cabinet members to assist in his cover-up. While he should have been focusing all of his attentions on the growing threat of Osama bin Laden, he was mounting legal challenges to the investigation that significantly reduced the ability of future presidents to receive privileged legal advice. He actively obstructed the investigation (I believe infatuated Monica took the hit for him by swearing that she was the sole author of the false affidavit Linda Tripp was asked to sign) to a degree far worse than what got Scooter Libby convicted and jailed. The hyper-partisanship that corrodes our political process today had its origins in the “they’re out to get me” strategy Clinton masterfully executed, exemplified by loyal, betrayed Hillary Clinton’s “vast right wing conspiracy” explanation for the charges that 1) were true and 2) that she almost certainly knew were true.
Perhaps more damaging than Clinton’s conduct were the unethical messages and arguments his surrogates, lawyer Lanny Davis and others, flooded the talk shows and news shows with to keep public opinion supporting the poor, sexy, charming, persecuted President. They were the catalyst for my first ethics blog, for I was shocked at how invalid rationalizations were dominating the discussion. “Everybody does it!‘, used to excuse a President lying under oath, a bright line violation of his Oath of Office, because “everybody lies about sex.” “They did it too!,” citing actual and rumored sexual infidelities by past Presidents to minimize Clinton’s conduct, though had most of the actual affairs being cited been publicized at the time they occurred, those Presidents ( especially Kennedy) would have been impeached as well. “The King’s Pass,” claiming that Clinton was too important to hold to the standards of ordinary mortals. “It’s not the worst thing,” arguing that Clinton’s conduct didn’t reach the level of corruption of President Richard Nixon.* “Everybody makes mistakes,” as if a contrived cover-up of courtroom perjury and a months long workplace affair was “one mistake.” There were others. Lawyers, ministers, celebrities and elected leaders echoed these toxic excuses for Bill’s unethical conduct over and over again for months, rotting the public’s ethical instincts, all so he could get away with it. It worked, too. The Senate is a political body, and as long as the public had a high opinion of Clinton, it was never going to find him guilty of the House’s charges. If the President of the United States had to teach the country that lying under oath, having an adulterous sexual affair with an employee, lying to the public about it and impeding the justice system is acceptable, then so be it: the ends justify the means, of course.
For Bill Clinton, who violated the sexual harassment law he himself signed and was hailed by the women’s movement for signing, to be the featured speaker at a Democratic convention celebrating women’s rights, was hypocrisy and cynicism of the highest order. (It was only somewhat lessened by the earlier hypocrisy of the convention honoring the late Ted Kennedy, whose tenure in the Senate was entirely attributable to an effective cover-up of his responsibility for the death of a young women, who drowned in his car, as Teddy sobered up and consulted with lawyers and political advisors. As James Taranto says, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.) It was Clinton who corrupted the women’s movement, which had properly made the case that when a boss has a sexual affair with a subordinate, there can be no “consent” because of the disparity in power. Suddenly Gloria Steinem and other supposed feminists were abandoning their principles to provide cover for Clinton. It was disgusting. But that’s Bill—a real charmer with the ladies.
Yes, Bill gets ratings, the news media licks his boots, he raises money and can stir up the crowd. That was enough, apparently, for the Democrats to justify celebrating a man who disgraced the office of the President, corrupted the ethics of a generation and has never apologized for either. And, after all, it worked.
As Bill Clinton will be the first to tell you, that’s all that matters.
Isn’t it?
* I would argue, however, that while the Watergate scandal in the end was good for the country, Clinton’s scandal continues to harm it.
______________________________________
Graphic: Bliss Tree
Ethics Alarms 
It’s tough to say that “it worked”. If it wasn’t for his antics, maybe, just maybe, there wouldn’t be as many tea baggers. Maybe that sect doesn’t get off the ground and gain as much steam as they did shortly after Clinton’s masquerades. It may have worked in one respect but it could have, and likely did, steer some away from the Democratic party. I may just be spewing nonsense here, but, it seems plausible to think that his actions did have some negative affects for the Presidency and for the Democratic party moving forward.
Not nonsense at all. The diminishment of public trust in the government and the people holding office was definitely affected, even as people continued to “like” Bill as a lovable rogue. Everything flows from that.
The “tea baggers” did not become a major political force until the bailouts of 2008.
Wanetta Gibson was part of that everybody.
So were the children and prosecutors involved in the Kern County abuse scandal.
And apparently, so were Graham Spanier and Gary Schultz.
Yes, good observation. I don’t think it is unfair to connect those dots.
I know you have with Nixon, Gingrich, and Kennedy. Do you hold everyone in history to the same ethics standards? For instance King David, King Solomon, multiple royalty, and Thomas Jefferson?
Re Jefferson: one of his biographers, Fawn Brody, concerning his relationship with Sally Hemings, said TJ was “a first-rate mind in a deeply-flawed personality.” I agree, much as I admire the man. Hagiography is always a frustrating and difficult task.
1. Relevance?
2. Individuals from different ethical cultures need to be judged in the context of those cultures. The standards change. Obviously Thomas Jefferson keeping slaves today would be unforgivable.
3. Kings are a different matter, since by the traditional ethics applied they couldn’t do wrong by definition. It’s an interesting academic question. Not germane here.
If he bothered to read the Bible, he would have read that it plainly stated that what King David did was wrong.
Which doesn’t make it wrong. I don’t think Bill gives a hoot about morality (The Bible)…do you?
@Michael ..Why have you implied that I don’t read the Bible? I never implied that I don’t think what Clinton did wasn’t wrong and I never said that God did not punish David. Weird. I asked a question and Jack gave me an answer. I Never intended for it to become a Bible study.
He likes to slam Jefferson every chance he gets.
I think its just becuase that if you took everyone who ever graduated from Harvard and combined them they wouldnt be as smart as Jefferson by himself.
John Adams would disagree. In fact, he DID disagree.
I didn’t slam Jefferson. I was just pointing out that he was fallible. I appreciate his contributions to my country.He is perhaps the greatest of our forefathers in my humble opinion. Isn’t all right if someone holds someone in high esteem yet recognizes that they have shortcomings?
To be perfectly honest, the tenure of President Clinton–and the circumstances of his impeachment–were the precise time, place, and reason that the Democratic Party lost me, probably forever. And because I was a Pennsylvanian at the time, the same is true of Arlen Specter who voted with the Democrats to allow President Clinton to remain in office. Not one single Democrat voted to remove him.
It’s a bias. I’m aware of it. I do my best to take it into account and be as fair and objective as I can. But it will probably be with me for life.
–Dwayne
Dwayne,
I know of several people, generally middle-aged or older, who had the same reaction. Life-long Democrats who said: “This far, and no further.”, and felt that the line had been crossed in the party.
Excellent piece Jack. I’m reminded of George Will’s quote about Clinton at the end of his presidency: “Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president.”
I’m sorry, but “the pubic had a high opinion of Clinton” is like typo art.
Oops. Freudian slip if I ever made one. Thanks. Fixed, unfortunately. I almost left it as it was.
Mitt feels differently:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-clinton-did-elevate-democratic-convention-215344170–election.html
Mitt’s dead wrong. He’s wrong a lot. And he is talking about Clinton’s speech’s content, which has nothing to do with his person, his record, and his character. Mitt has good reason to be envious of Clinton’s charm and ease with a crowd. But he’s a better man than Clinton, and shouldn’t lower himself by praising him.
Agreed on most points.
And this has been the surprise–nobody really disagrees. I expected to get some of those silly, “Yeah but Bush’s lies about the WMD’s killed people” deflections. Nope.
I think most people know what Bill is, and like him anyway. Which is depressing.
It is like they have no principles.
I was kind of confused why you brought up the Clinton thing. I was wondering what you thought of Newt giving a speech? Then why bring in an 82 yr old actor/politician who has a record of infidelity to open for Mr. Romney?
Multiple “huh?s”. I thought I was pretty clear why I brought up Clinton: how much more specific do you want? He’s an embarrassment. The GOP never let Nixon speak. What’s confusing? Newt didn’t speak, but he’s no ethics corrupter: Gingrich wasn’t president, didn’t break the law, didn’t have to resign his law license {hint: if you’re too sleazy to be a lawyer, you’re too sleazy to be a party icon—or President.}. What does Newt have to do with Clinton at all? Why are you confused? Are you having a stroke?
And the issue with Clinton was NOT infidelity. It was sexual harassment and perjury and a cover-up and obstruction of justice. You’re just re-running the stupid and dishonest defenses from 1998, and I don’t tolerate them—cut it out.
Go ahead–you tell me why a novelty speech by an actor who never broke any laws, had no ethical obligations as an elected official and was so far from being President that he couldn’t see the White House with a telescope is materially distinct in every respect from a featured speech by an impeached President who hurt everyone from his family to the office to national security to his party to the conduct of kids (blow jobs aren’t sex now, you know) to the women’s movement, to the thousands upon thousands of lower employees hit on because Gloria Steinem endorsed the “one hit rule” to protect Bill, to the Secret Service, which now has legal precedent saying that what they see isn’t privileged. If you can’t, then you really ARE having a stroke. 911. QUICK.
And what in Holy Hell does Clint’s age have to do with anything???????? Compare him to the Democrats having a parade of Hollywood bimbos tell us what they think.
As I wrote, I expected stupid comments to this post, and was pleasantly surprised that I didn’t get any, until this. I certainly didn’t expect you to be the exception.
I do not recall if anyone before Clinton tried to assert such a privilege.
In any event, such a privilege does not make sense. Why would not the Gambino crime family assert the same privilege with what Sammy “the Bull” Gravano saw?
That was not my point. The privilege doesn’t make sense, but as long as it was traditionally observed, the First Family had a level of trust that was beneficial. Lots of usually harmless practices exist outside strict interpretation of the laws…Clinton threw multiple challenges out to exploit these for his own selfish defense, killing more than one in the courts.
You put alot of words in my mouth. I asked questions and the only thing I implied was that I felt Mr. Eastwood ( I like Clint Eastwood) kind of made himself and the GOP look sort of stupid. And I don’t think I imagined Newt and his wife address at the convention. Again, maybe I have never made my view on Clinton’s actions known. I thought Clinton should have resigned instead of waste so much time and money with the sideshow. And yes I agree with you but I don’t give any free passes just because they aren’t President or actors.
I really apologize, Michael, for an unfairly harsh reply. I was on a train late at night, it was a pain typing, and the mere hint of a defense of Clinton drives me over the brink anyway. Forgive me; that was bad, and you didn’t deserve it.
A list of those who looked foolish or said outrageous things at the two conventions would be too large to compile. That wasn’t the focus of the article.
You are right: Clinton should have resigned, and everyone, except him, would have been better off if he had. I thought Gore should have forced his hand by resigning himself; I thought Hillary should have thrown him under the bus. Most of all, I thought SOME Democrat—I had high hopes for Moynihan—should have broken ranks. The fact is, every time I see or hear about Clinton it drives me nuts, and the fact that the media tries to make the guy sound admirable in any way will eventually kill me.
Again, sorry for snapping at you.
Trains are rough aren’t they? I almost had a stroke with your reply. I knew you were cooler than that. We all have our moments and we aren’t even politicians. I get that way about people. Namely, Oprah and Kathy Lee Gifford. What bothers me about Clinton and other very articulate politicians is how they pull you in,… and you, for a brief moment forget they lie or attempt to anyway. Apology accepted.
Thanks.
Would these same people apply that reasoning to Donald Trump?
Or do they have double standards?
I wonder if Clinton’s apologists in this matter were the reason Bill O’Reilly and Harvey Weinstein were able to get away with this misconduct for so long.
I’d put it this way: The way liberals rallied to excuse and enable Clinton set the cause of creating a cultural consensus against sexual harassment back decades, and that led to more harassers, bold predators, and abused women.
I said so at the time. I hope Bill’s hypocritical feminist supporters are proud, because this was predictable, as well as disgusting.
I just heard someone on CNN, in a discussion about the impeachment campaign against President Trump, about how Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.