| February 20, 1999 Dear Readers: I apologize for the long delay in resuming and forwarding my Rants and Raves. Unfortunately, there are times when I actually have work to do and you, my beloved readers, must take a back seat. The causes of my inattention to you is presently continuing, so do not expect the resumption of frequest columns. But I know that many of you rely on this column for insight into the problems of the world, so I am taking the time to temporarily satisfy your hunger to hear from ME, ME, ME. IMPEACHMENT The impeachment trial concluded several weeks ago and nobody seems to miss it (although I feel compelled to talk about it). If you review my Rant in which I made my predictions, I was generally right about the process of the Trial, but missed the vote count by about ten votes. I thought about five Democrats would defect, but I was wrong. The Democratic Senators who Conservatives generally like (Lieberman, Moynihan, Kerrey, etc.) are the Charlie Brown "Lucy" of Conservative politics. They continually give signs that they will defect from a liberal orthodoxy on an important issue, but when it comes time to vote, they pull the football away every time. They have pulled the football away enough times that if Conservatives are gullible enough to ever get their hopes up again, they will deserve whatever disillusionment they will certainly experience. Ok, big picture time. What does the past year mean and what does it mean for the elections in 2000? The flip answer is that whatever Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and ABC News says or predicts, the truth is the exact opposite. Bill is my personal hero, but he has been wrong in just about every prediction he has made with respect to the scandal. Bill is predicting that the scandal and the impeachment trial are not going to go away and will continue to be a big issue. The truth, therefore, must be that the scandal and impeachment will have no continuing effect. The real answer, my friends, is that Bill Kristol is actually wrong and the scandal is going to go away with no long-term consequences, good or bad. The scandal and impeachment will have little effect in the 2000 elections and Republicans are not going to suffer because of the impeachment process (although that is not to say they might not suffer for reasons totally unrelated to impeachment). The 2000 elections It is essential to understand that the Clinton saga was a "political elite" scandal. To me, the most fascinating aspect of the scandal was that the disgust with the President was directly proportional to the person's proximity to the President or interest in politics. For instance, and I base this totally on intuition, a majority of Washington journalists, who are largely liberal, would have been happy to see Clinton removed from office and are shocked that he did not resign. The same holds true for much of the permanent political class in Washington D.C. Why? Because they get to see and experience Clinton on a regular basis as a regular human being, and when the guy is not on camera or in front of a crowd who are there to give him money, he is generally a liar and a jerk. When a guy lies to you directly for six years, your admiration for him tends to dissipate. On the other hand, those who supported Clinton and provide those 70% approval numbers are the "Joe Sixpacks" of the country. Joe Sixpack probably doesn't even know the name of the Vice President and could care less about what goes on in Washington D.C. He saw the scandal and impeachment process as a waste of time, because it in no way affected him. People like me, and some of you, are rare birds -- people with a serious interest in politics as sport or entertainment. That is not to say that I do not take politics seriously, but that my interest is part of my leisure time, that given a choice between MSNBC or ESPN, I will often take MSNBC. Joe Sixpack could care less about "politics" and would gladly trade MSNBC, CNBC, CNN and FOX News for ESPN3. Therefore, he just wanted the scandal and impeachment process over, over, over, one way or the other, because he was sick and tired of hearing about something in which he had no interest. Because the Republicans were pushing ahead, Republicans got the blame. Now that the trial is over, and the Republicans cannot be blamed for keeping the story on the front page, Joe Sixpack will revert to his pre-scandal feelings and, if he votes, which is doubtul, will vote based on his sense of whether the Republican or Democratic candidate is better for him. The notion that Joe Sixpack will vote for a Democrat simply because of impeachment is ludicrous. Furthermore, who is going to raise the issue in 2000? As explained above, journalists generally dislike Clinton, and will probably be more likely to ask Democrats why they voted not to impeach. Democratic candidates will not raise the issue, because the reason the public is down on the Republicans is because they blame the Republicans for keeping the story going. Therefore, it will be in everybody's interest to keep silent about impeachment and instead, talk about the "people's business." In a future Rant, I will examine the 2000 race in detail. At this time, however, suffice it to say that Republicans will not suffer, and Democrats will not benefit, from impeachment. The Morality Of The Country The acquittal of the President and his 70% approval ratings will have no long-term, material affect on the culture. The reason is that Clinton was so brazen, so criminal, that he is impossible to emulate. Let me explain. Since the 1960's, our culture has become more libertine, more accepting and nonjudgmental of conduct that was not previously acceptable. (With the exception of smoking. That is another Rant.) The process of "liberation" from previous norms occurs as follows. Somebody crosses a line and a scandal erupts. Usually, the person will not survive the scandal. However, the fact the line was crossed, and the world did not come to an end, is discussed and analyzed. The next time somebody crosses the line, the responsive emotion is simply not there. Therefore, the line is moved forward. For instance, in 1928, Al Smith was the first Catholic candidate for the Presidency. His Catholicism was enormously controversial, because many people doubted whether a Catholic President could be loyal to both the Constitution and the Pope. Thirty years later, when JKF ran, his Catholicism was still an issue, but much less so. Adlai Stevenson was the first divorced man to run as President, which was enormously controversial. When Ronald Reagan ran, it was not even an issue. Douglas Ginzburg withdrew from consideration for the Supreme Court because he had smoked marijuana as a law professor. The prescient Al Gore, among others, soon announced their "experiment" with illegal substances in years past. The issue is now dead. We come to our beloved President. He is our first openly adulterous President. Has he set a precedent that all future Casanovas will benefit from? Please. In 1988, Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice during his campaign for President. He tried to carry on, but had to give up. In a way, he was the blocker for Clinton in 1992, who was elected President even though he basically admitted that he had been unfaithful. From that point on, past adultery was no longer a disqualifier, but even Clinton did not take the position that current adultery was ok. What happened in 1998 is on a different level and indicates that Gary Hart did not make way for everything related to sex. In the mid-1990s, Bob Packwood was forced to resign for making an "uninvited pass" at every woman who moved. It is clear that Packwood was not a blocker for any social change. In fact, his resignation was the sign of a reverse cultural change. No future President, or any politician, is going to believe the lesson of 1998 is that a politician can openly be serviced by an intern without consequence, or perjure himself without consequence. Undoubtedly, politicians in the future will have affairs and they will lie. But they will do their damnedest to keep it a secret and to keep it from their political enemies. It is simply inconceivable that a future politician will openly announce he has a mistress or is going to perjure himself. Clinton is a precedent for absolutely nothing. The reason Clinton survived this scandal is because he is a sociopath and did not care that if he stayed in office, his personal reputation would be shot. 99% of the population is not like that, even politicians. The lesson to be learned from Clinton is not that you can get away with anything, but that if you do something, it is more likely than ever before that it will be discovered. My guess is that if there is anybody out there who is thinking of running for President, and has a mistress, there is going to be a break-up before the campaign begins. In two years, Clinton will be out of office, we will all take a communal shower and and his Presidency is going to go down a memory hole. Clinton will be precedent for nothing. Thank you for listening. DS |