|
In Greenpeace's case, if I understand his thinking, it's more like the Republicans are out to destroy Johnson's Great Society reforms, Clinton is the best hope of stopping them, the attacks on Clinton are really backdoor attempts to neutralize Clinton so the Republicans (and, I presume he would add, the religious right) can foist their reactionary agenda on America more easily, the benefits to the Nation from stopping the Republicans are far more important than worrying about a few white lies by a married man about minor sexual escapades. As a purely political argument, if you start with the premise that destroying Clinton will seriously damage the country, it's not a totally illogical argument, though I can't buy into it because I happen to believe that integrity is essential for a national leader, and that having a prejurous moral bankrupt in charge of the country is more damaging than anything the Republicans could do in the next three years with Gore elevated to President after Clinton resigns. But I have to admit that Greenpeace is making a reasonable, not totally illogical, argument if you start with the right (or in this case the left) premises. |
