Clinton's evasion of scandal breaches public trust

Published: Monday, September 28, 1998

Monday, September 28, 1998

CHARACTER: Through the years, presidential lies persist to test true strength of American support

In 1996, media polls told us that an overwhelming percentage of Americans believed that Robert Dole was, in short, a great guy. He was honorable, he told the truth; they would rather their children grow up like him than like his opponent.

They proceeded to elect Dole's opponent.

That opponent, namely William Jefferson Clinton, has now found himself in a whirlwind of scandal. He has admitted an inappropriate relationship, which he has previously denied, and he takes full responsibility - but he blames Independent Council Kenneth Starr. This is but one in a series of lies and deceptions from the Clinton administration, a marathon of misleading interpretations and blatant falsehoods.

Surprisingly, Americans admit these falsehoods, at least if you believe the polls that Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather want you to believe. During the 1992 and the 1996 campaigns, Americans believed President Clinton was an out-and-out liar, but they decided that was OK. They knew there were legitimate questions about his marriage and hints that he was attached to criminal activity (the Whitewater investigation put criminals, one-time associates of Clinton, in jail).

But America decided that these things did not matter, that character did not matter, so long as the man was getting the job done.

Whether or not President Clinton is "getting the job done" is a matter of debate, but the assertion that character does not matter in evaluation of a president is in contrast to over 200 years of the executive branch's history.

Historical records of presidents are created by their images, which mostly stems directly from their character, or at least the character they convey to the American people. George Washington is routinely referred to as a great president but because of his leadership skills and not because of his policies.

In fact, most Americans are completely ignorant of Washington's administration, and his best-known advice (against foreign entanglements) has proven outdated in the modern world. Washington is "great" because his character was that of a great leader, the ideal person to have been in charge of the beginning of the great experiment called America.

Washington is not the only president whose image is created by character traits. Why is Abraham Lincoln great? The Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address and the leadership he gave the Union during its time of greatest discord are testaments to his greatness.

What do we remember of Ulysses Grant's presidency? We do not remember his policies (as if people even knew what they were), but the scandals of his administration.

Woodrow Wilson is not remembered for being the man who introduced segregation to the federal level of government, but as the intellectual who made the pursuit of American ideals the cornerstone of our nation's foreign policy.

Elementary school children learn of Franklin Roosevelt's Fireside Chats long before high schoolers learn of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

John Kennedy is celebrated as the King of Camelot because of his public image, not because of domestic or foreign policy (Bay of Pigs, anyone?).

Has Richard Nixon's effect on modern perceptions of the presidency been due to his foreign successes (China), domestic missteps (price and wage controls) or Watergate?

If the history of the United States has taught us anything, it teaches us that 100 years from now, only the politically minded will concern themselves with dissecting Bill Clinton's often schizophrenic policies. The mark each president leaves on the White House transcends partisan politics and depends heavily on the image of the man in which the American people believe. Believe it or not, character does matter; it always has, and there is little reason to believe that it never will.

Yet somehow, Americans have turned their backs on this truism.

They have elected a man they do not respect, while they sent Bob Dole off to test Viagra and get a tan. Why is this? Some claim that it is because the nation is doing well right now.

Yes, but if people respect Dole more than Clinton, wouldn't they believe that the country would do better under Dole?

Some claim that it is because Clinton's foibles make him seem more like an ordinary American. Perhaps, but does it not seem reasonable that most people would prefer a president they can admire to one who might be more likely to swap dirty jokes over a couple of beers?

Others claim that the American people have realized that character simply does not matter.

Perhaps the American people do think that - but nothing could be further from the truth. The Aug. 18, 1998 Los Angeles Times headline declared: "Clinton Admits to Deception." Unfortunately, this refers to but one lie in Clinton's political life: the Lewinsky affair. The headline does not refer to the avalanche of deceit that has stemmed from this man dating back to 1992.

Remember, in his campaign Clinton labeled the economy "the worst in 40 years", seemingly forgetting about the energy crisis of the 1970s. He complained of a $400 billion deficit; when he discovered after his election that it was only $290 billion, he complained that it was $50 billion higher than he expected. (In point of fact, $290 is $110 less than $400, not $50 more).

When a pro-Bush ad claimed that Clinton's spending would necessitate tax increases for families earning $36,000 or more, Clinton labeled the sitting president a "disgrace to the American people" and adamantly declared that he would cut spending before raising taxes; after his election, Clinton submitted a budget proposal that raised taxes on families making $20,000 or more per year.

This is the man who decried Bush's Haiti policy as "racial politics," then sought to defend that policy in court.

This is the man who claimed to have a brilliant "First Hundred Days" program for his first administration, only to force his staff to publicly admit that no such plan existed.

After Clinton occupied the White House, the hits just kept on coming.

He accused Republicans of "starving kids," when the Republican budget proposal raised student lunch programs higher than Clinton's own proposal.

He accused the Republicans of cutting Medicare; when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked him during a press conference why he was saying this when the Republican proposal in fact raised Medicare spending, then, Clinton blamed the media.

President Clinton has repeatedly mis-characterized his opponents' positions in order to gain a political advantage. He did not invent the politics of mud-slinging or demagoguery, he simply elevated them to the Politics of Vilification. In our current political climate, it has become easier to accuse your opponents of attempting to starve people than to actually debate them on cognitive issues.

Perhaps this rhetoric of expediency is the result of a post-modern media frenzy, but Clinton has done as much to separate politics from the issues as any figure in modern politics.

When historians look back on the 1990s, they will see a time when the president of the United States did not have the people's respect, and that is clearly not a good thing.

Much of this country's disillusionment with politics stems back to Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy and Nixon's Watergate cover-up. When our leaders lie so continuously, not only about themselves but about their political opponents, trust is not engendered. That is more important in the long term than a percentage-point difference in school lunch funding or $50 billion of a federal deficit. We have lost trust in our leaders.

More disturbingly, Clinton's reliance on mistruths as well as his aversions to debating issues on substance betray a lack of trust in us - the American people. He did not say it explicitly, but it seems as though Clinton wants the nation's forgiveness. Perhaps he will get it. But unfortunately for Clinton, history will never forget.

Strelow is the internal vice chairman of Bruin Republicans and an Undergraduate Student Association Council (USAC) general representative.

Comments, feedback, problems?