>However, if the "character" you are referring to is sexual probity, then yes, I would say it doesn't matter very much..<
A great sadness. For you a man is a mere machine, the purpose of which is to effect some desired material, philosophical or political outcome. For me, a man is ultimately his word and deed, and when he chronically allows either of these to contradict his own true sense of decency, he loses himself, as he then becomes nothing more than an animal. This is why young men who boast about their female conquests are fundamentally unimpressive. It takes a man to gaze at a woman as his equal, determining beforehand not to abuse himself attempting to use her. Contrary to this, even mere dogs have the power sleep around.
>Consider some of the President's and leading public figures with significantly taited sexual probity, who we clearly know had several affairs while in high places: Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Martin Leuther King, Jefferson.<
These were no doubt effective machines, but if the immoral things said about them are true, and if they in themselves cynically defended these things, as does Mr. Clinton, then they were certainly not great men, despite their achievements.
>Now consider some national figures about whose lives much is known, and who are widely considered to have been squeeky clean, sexually: Carter, Ford, Nixon, Hoover, Coolidge.<
Of course a man is not morally to be measured only by sexual purity, but by every one of his words and deeds. If these men lived their lives according to at least their own sense of common decency, and if in the cases where they compromised this sense of decency they sincerely repented, then they were great men. Here, a garbage man can be the greatest man on the earth. It takes no great feat, but simply the living of a life with moral deliberateness.
>I would say the correlation between sexual probity, fully living by all the Church's rules, and effective or even great, leadership is very low. I'm tempted to say it might be negative. <g><
A silly statement. It is perhaps the case that the same unbridled impulses that allow sexual impurity, promote achievement. But to claim the existence of a correlation between sexual impurity itself and achievement is simply asinine. It is to say sexual impurity promotes leadership. Silly.
>Sure, its nice to have someone who is energetic, inspiring, creative, forceful and a great leader, and who also has a squeeky clean personal sexual life. Personally, I don't place the later very high in my list of priorities for a national leader.<
The problem here is, oftentimes a sexual life that is not "squeaky clean" means that someone else is being destroyed, and to me, this completely annihilates my ability to look upon such a man as a great man. I understand you better now, and believe we will never see eye-to-eye on this (and I doubt nearly every) issue. For you, a great leader is anyone who can effectively ensure the national bathrooms have sufficient toilet paper and supplies. I can argue against this view logically only to a point, as the issue is ultimately a metaphysical one. But I find your position nihilistic at its core, and terribly offensive to my sensibilities.
>For a minister, that's a different matter. We are in this mess because of a great collision of the I think largely hypocritical moralism and piety of the nation, and its pragmatic recognition of the much greater importance of vision and balance in our leaders.<
Of course I view it differently. We are in the throes of a conflict between healthy moral idealism and nihilism. The former camp, while recognizing its own failures, believes it always beneficial to strive for the ideal, even though living it to perfection is impossible. The latter camp believes such idealism is unsophisticated, impractical, "religious". For them, as long as there is toilet paper in the bathrooms, they do not cares about who sleeps with whom. The latter view is foolish, because for every infraction of the ideal, someone is injured. This is why when the target of the ideal is missed, one must sincerely atone for the failure to bring the moral system back into equilibrium. In an increasingly nihilistic world, the target is increasingly self-gratification. As long as you get your toilet paper, it matters not at all who the President sleeps with. The problem is, he has to sleep with someone's wife, or daughter.
>I'm for the European view, unambiguously and without reservation. I'm pleased that the public, if not the media, are much more there than previously.<
I have lived in Europe, and in my opinion these societies, when taken as a whole, are not worth emulating. When compared with America, whole society to whole society, I find the countries of Europe are wholly unable to preach to us. This is especially true, almost axiomatic in the case of France.
>I think the moral decay argument is absolute bunk. I think the media and Washington elite are swept up in a sort of legal absolutism. "The hightest law enforcement officer in the land." etc. Some proportion is necessary. And the sin of the lie relates not only to the subject he lied about, but also the fact that he had been cornered, unjustly by his zealous political enemies in the Paula Jones suit.<
This is not about legal absolutism. It is about perniciously lying and twisting language to deny reality. When a President does this, he must be held to the fire. What you claim here is that our law was fundamentally unfair to Bill Clinton and that because of this he had a right to break it. The problem here is that neither you nor Bill Clinton have the right to so arbitrarily impose your sense of law onto the country. When the courts let stand the questions put to Clinton, he became bound to answer them truthfully or plead the Fifth Amendment. He had no other right, but yet because you disagree with the legal system, you have ascribed to him the right to lie to the court. Well then we should all lie in cases where we believe the courts have no right to pry. And we again see here that Clinton has done a remarkable amount of damage to the American system, and therefore should resign or be impeached.
>If the President could be proven to have committed perjury concerning what he did or didn't do with Paula Jones, that would be more serious. Because those questions were rightfully asked...<
By whose judgement, sir? Yours? Well I am so very awful sorry to inform you, but your judgment simply does not count here. The courts allowed those questions to be asked, and thus Bill Clinton was bound by law to answer them truthfully. He lied, and has therefore assaulted the American judicial system. You advocate a mere wink at perjury, and this is a silly thing to do, especially with one who has been especially and explicitly given the solemn duty to "faithfully execute the Office of President . . . preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . and take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
>But [the Paula Jones] suit was used by right wing enemies of the President as an inquisition vehicle into his unrelated sex life.<
This is quite irrelevant, whether it is true or not. The relevant fact here is that the case was tried and Clinton lied. (and he continues to lie, even as we speak)
>The judge subsequently ruled the Lewinsky line of questions not material in the Jones suit. But too late. And why? Because in civil suits ususally such matters aren't determined by the Judge until trial. And the judge nievely thought her gag order sealing the testimony would protect the President from any prejudical unfairness of following that usual rule.<
From Judge Wright's ruling to dismiss the Lewinsky information:
>"The court acknowledges that evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky might be relevant to the issues in this case. The court would await resolution of the criminal investigation currently under way if the Lewinsky evidence were essential to the plaintiff's case. The court determines, however, that it is not essential to the core issues in this case. In fact, some of this evidence might even be inadmissible as extrinsic evidence under Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Admitting any evidence of the Lewinsky matter would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and would undoubtedly cause undue expense and delay. The court's ruling today does not preclude admission of any other evidence of alleged improper conduct occurring in the White House."<
The Judge thought the Lewinsky evidence possibly relevant to the case, but not essential. The ruling was influenced by two things 1.) Starr's request for limited intervention and a stay of discovery in the Monica Lewinsky matter (he thought the Jone's attorney's were "shadowing" his investigation), and 2.) Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which essentially states that evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.''
Had Clinton been truthful, the matter might possibly would have been different. Now the Judge in the dismissed Jones case may consider citing Clinton for contempt of court because of his lies. Regardless of the case, Clinton flagrantly broke the law and continues to lie and cheat about it, harming the public trust. |
