Dear Readers,

With this last week’s high-profile release of President Clinton’s autobiography, “My Life”, today appears an excellent opportunity to deliver a much-ignored perspective concerning President Clinton’s controversy: I speak, of course, of that of History.

There’s really only one scandal worth mentioning when you speak of President Clinton (though there were many), and you know the arguments of both Republicans and Democrats concerning the controversy as well as I. Republicans remain infuriated (or claim to be) by President Clinton’s sexual activities while in office. They believe President Clinton’s sexual shenanigans should have led to his loss of office. Democrats have unsurprisingly circled the wagons and declare President Clinton’s personal conduct his own business (or, if they lack that much hypocrisy, that extramarital sex is certainly no “high crime or misdemeanor”). The two bands entered into a war on which numerous books may be read (though not here at Theocrats.com).

The fight was so big, you’d be forgiven for having thought something new occurred.

THE W[HORE] HOUSE

More than one Republican called the scandal of President Clinton’s sex life “unprecedented” during those stormy days, but it was the Democrats who were correct when they wailed that what was “unprecedented” was the assault on a president for his sexual activities. After all, until the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, presidents of the U.S.A had always been allowed to cheat on their wives without any fuss.

Indeed, Monica Lewinsky may proudly ascribe her name to a long list of presidential sex toys, including but not limited to: Carrie Fulton Phillips, Nan Britton, Mary Allen Hulbert Peck, Lucy Mercer, Missy LeHand, Marilyn Monroe, Pamela Turnure, Judith Campbell Exner, Ellen Rometsch, Madeleine Brown, and Alice Glass! President Warren G. Harding befowled half the closets of the White House in order to keep his affair a secret from his wife. President Lyndon B. Johnson sometimes referred to the women he gifted with his sexual organ as his “harem”. President Kennedy not only successfully bedded many women, but left a number of those women with a memento: Chlamydia, a sexually-transmitted disease for which he was constantly being treated. Even one of the most-admired presidents of the twentieth century, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, could be found with a tart on his lap for his pleasure. So what, you could rightfully ask if you were President Clinton during the investigation, was the problem?

Depending on your point of view, one or two possible problems arise from the Starr investigation:

Problem 1: The problem is that until President Clinton’s censure and fining, we’ve allowed presidents of the United States of the United States of America to act in a horrendous manner that is completely at odds with what should be expected of a public servant. President Theodore Roosevelt would agree that this is the problem. Among other things, he said: * “No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community…”

• “‘Liar’ is just as ugly a word as ‘thief,’ because it implies the presence of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law.”

• “Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity.”

Problem 2: The problem is that we’ve started not allowing presidents of the United States of America to act in such a manner.

LOGICALLY SPEAKING

Personally, I’m conflicted. We don’t criminalize extramarital sex in the United States and never have, although we certainly understand that such practicioners should forfeit all of their rights in their marriage agreement if they engage in it. On the other hand, President Roosevelt is undeniably right that, if a man cannot be trusted to hold his most sacred vows as inviolate, he probably shouldn’t be trusted to honorably run a post office. And that’s a very important distinction: It’s not enough that our public servants simply execute their duties effectively if they fail to do so honestly and honorably as well.

Could President Clinton still execute his own duties honestly and honorably? There’s a widespread belief that when a man allows himself to be dishonest in one area of his life, he’s apt to be dishonest in other areas, as well. This belief is commonly referred to as “the slippery slope.” Logic rejects the slippery slope as a fallacy. So despite their hypocrisy in saying it, Democrats have logic on their side when they say a president shouldn’t be impeached for cheating on his wife. Logically, a president’s cheating on his wife has no bearing on how he performs his duties.

But Logic is blind to many realities, none more so than those concerned with people, and for humans the slippery slope is a dangerous reality on which they often do slip. To deny this is to lie. You know how real the Slope is, Reader, because you’ve watched yourself slip in your own life.

CONCLUSION

Short of Bly Blumenthal, few in the United States of America believe President Clinton is an honest and honorable person. It’s common knowledge that a sexual relationship (yes, Bill, that’s what it was) with Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a lone mistake in an ocean of virtuous living. As Governor Schwarzenegger said when confronted with allegations of his own misconduct, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and a lot of smoke was rising over President Clinton long before Monica Lewinsky came into the picture. Where his marriage is concerned, I think it can safely be said that President Clinton has no honor or honesty. Does that mean he should be barred, by law, from public office?

With apologies to President Theodore Roosevelt, I don’t think it does. I think the danger of having someone like President William Jefferson Clinton in office is great, but not so great as the danger inherent in giving anyone the right to decide what kind of person is allowed to be a president. Imagining that the tide of public opinion were to change, what would stop the legislative branch of the US from passing a law prohibiting a practicing Christian from holding office? The possibility is not so remote as we might think. Remember, it’s now considered improper for former Boy Scout judges to hear cases involving homosexuals.

I agree with President Theodore Roosevelt that a man like President Clinton should never be trusted with public office. But restraining evil is often far more dangerous than allowing evil its freedom to strike, fellow Americans. For that reason, I urge you to, whenever possible, restrain it with your vote rather than with the law, and then the beast will have one less tooth when it turns on you.

Goodnight.

Your Theocrat,

$

A POST-SCRIPT: HOW DO YOU REACT?

In the spirit of my recent call for perspective (“How Do You React?”, archived under Hotsheets 6-18-04), I request that you all momentarily consider the unhappy position of President William Clinton, his wife Senator Hillary Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton. I doubt the political pursuits of the Clintons have satisfied them as as a loving marriage and God-filled life would have. I doubt as well that the circumstances of her childhood have prepared Chelsea for a life serving her Lord Jesus. Think about it, Folks, and if you feel so moved, include the Clinton family in your prayers.