| Guaranteeing An Apologist In Every Pot by ZACK NGUYEN Thursday September 3, 1998 Defenders of President Clinton, dwindling though they may be, have several reasons they give as to why Clinton should be exonerated of all wrongdoing. The reasons are varied, though none of them stand up under logical scrutiny of any kind. It is important to consider what these arguments are, and what their meaning holds for our culture, and for the future of this country. |
Jump to the
|
Now that Clinton has more or less admitted to lying since January, his defenders can no longer use the "Starr is a vicious partisan" defense. This, as well as their other arguments, are worth reviewing because they profoundly undercut the institutions that make a constitutional republic such as ours function. The first thing they usually say is that "it's no one's business but his." This is patently false and easily refutable. We can all agree, I think, that if Chelsea Clinton makes a bad grade in Calculus, that would be a purely private matter, that is only the Clinton family's business. However, if the president we elected to run our country engages in reckless behavior possibly damaging to our national security, lies to us about it, lies under oath, and commits felonies, then this surely enters the public domain. Clinton apologists will also offer this: "They've been investigating him for years and haven't found a thing." People forget that Clinton just admitted last week to having lied under oath. Though the "partisan" Ken Starr has continually avoided delving into some of the more sinister allegations covered by his investigation's mandate, there is no denying the progress he has made. Now it seems, by the president's own admission, Ken Starr is on to something. Although it's somewhat difficult to come across this statistic in the mainstream media, Starr has quietly nailed down over a dozen guilty pleas and convictions. On a dollar to conviction ratio, Starr is the most successful independent counsel of all time! Lawrence Walsh, Iran-Contra IC, spent $48 million and garnered only two convictions, both of which were overturned. Besides, Starr's report hasn't been issued yet. It probably would have been delivered to Congress long ago had the Clintons cooperated. Instead, we read reports of crucial files suddenly appearing in the White House residence two years after being subpoenaed by the Independent Counsel. At this point, the average Clinton supporter gets a little shrill and angry. Usually he'll blurt out, "Well, everyone does it! Every president does this stuff!" What this argument has to do with the current dilemma is perplexing. I guess we shouldn't prosecute bank robbers, because hundreds of banks are robbed every year by all sorts of people. People have committed crimes in the past -- and sometimes have even gotten away with them -- therefore, it must be alright. The Clinton supporter then becomes absolutely apoplectic with rage, and pulls out his last card. We get to see, finally, what his real thinking is. "He's done such a good job!" he'll wail. "The economy's so good! Look at unemployment!" Many conservatives reply with several well-meaning but inappropriate truths: (1) The economy was well on its way to recovery when Clinton took office. (2) The first thing Clinton did was raise taxes. (3) Clinton had nothing to do with hiring all the people that now have jobs. (4) Probably the best thing Clinton has done is to allow Alan Greenspan to stay on at the Federal Reserve, etc. Though probably truthful, this is the wrong way to approach the argument, because it concedes that if Clinton had actually done something to help the economy, he could break any law he wished and it would be acceptable. How effective Clinton has been as president is subjective, and again I fail to see how it has any relevance to the controversy at hand. If the policies our leaders have followed are to become the arbiter of whether a leader is legally liable, then we need to rethink our opinions of other world leaders in history. For starters, Adolph Hitler provided full employment and lead Germany out of a deep depression. The trains did indeed run on time. He was also extremely effective at implementing his policies -- namely, the destruction of the Jewish race and the conquering of Western Europe. Clearly, the effectiveness of a presidency has nothing to do with a debate over specific impeachable offenses. But if you listen to liberal pundits, the policies that a leader advances determine whether he should be considered above the law. Do we live in a republic, where the Constitution is our nation's highest secular law and no one, no matter how powerful, is exempt? Or do we live in an opinion poll democracy, where right and wrong is determined by who can marshal the most public support, and raw vote totals determine whether a politician should be held accountable for his actions? On a recent call-in radio show, I heard a woman claim that, though she disagreed with Clinton's conduct, she thought he should stay in office because he was such a proponent of "choice" for women. This woman was terrified, she said, of having a pro-life president that did not respect a woman's right to "choice". If Clinton was firmly anti-abortion, then doubtlessly this woman would be ready to lock him up and throw away the key. This attitude can be witnessed amongst the feminist culture, which has refused to criticize this president for his boorish and abusive behavior towards women. Bringing up words like honor and integrity with Clinton supporters is bound to get you in trouble. As evidenced by their excuses for his conduct, these people have dropped their own moral code several notches in order to accommodate our commander-in-heat. If Clinton survives this latest body blow, and manages somehow to snake out of impeachment when Starr's report hits, then we live in a country where right and wrong is powered entirely by public opinion. We might as well discard the Constitution, because the laws that have governed this country since its founding would be worthless. In fact, the rule of law itself would be worthless. Imagine that you are on trial for committing a crime. In the course of your defense you present as evidence the fact that 60% of the people on your block think you're a swell guy. You do not attempt to refute the charge with serious factual or physical evidence. In fact you try to change the subject while speaking to the jury. Maybe you have someone fake a heart attack in the audience. Any evidence that you present, such as the claim that you were not at the scene of the crime, is easily refuted by the physical evidence indicating that you were. Perhaps then you bring in groups of people that talk about charity events that you have sponsored and all the great things you do. Your defense is becoming weaker by the second and your only hope is to shift focus away from the overwhelming evidence that says you committed the crime. In short, you are going to jail. But perhaps not? The above scenario is happening right now, and all of America is the jury. How will we rule on the defendant? Soon enough, we will know, and whichever force triumphs, you can be assured that all of our lives will be altered, and the future condition of this country will be affected dramatically. Let us hope we hand down a sentence fitting to the crime. |
Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times columnist Zack
Nguyen.
Thanks
for visiting...
Front Page | Coffee
Talk | Bad Poetry | Writing
on the Wall |
Copyright © 1998, The Coffee Shop Times
