Oh dear. People always got on my back for allegedly sermonizing in the Microsoft context, but all I recall is getting really sarcastic about standard Microsoft business practice and "it's unethical to be ethical in business". You seem to have a lot of sermonizing to bestow on us, though. After Tom Delay and Henry Hyde and news of attack by dittohead hackers brought Salon to my attention, I had to check it out. A nice source of counterattack material, I must say. First, to make another Microsoft tie in, in parallel with Bill Gates the "politically naive software engineer", we have Ken Starr as the "politically naive prosecutor":
The only criticism of Starr's performance that the elite media has been able to muster during the frenzy of the last several months is that the independent counsel is not PR-savvy, that he lacks the conniving political instincts of, say, President Clinton. (Even in this criticism there is buried the glow of approbation, a sense that there is something noble about Starr's naivet‚.) And yet nothing could be further from the truth. Kenneth Starr is a consummately political being, and has been throughout his public life. And his goal from the moment he sought the independent counsel appointment was to hobble, if not destroy, a duly elected presidency that gave him and his conservative allies great offense. . . .
Ever since Clinton's Aug. 17 confession, the media have been thrashing around the White House like sharks smelling blood in the water. Now that Starr has "got" Clinton on Lewinsky, it's become an article of faith among the opinion elite that the prosecutor's unlimited probe has been completely vindicated and that any attempt to impugn him is folly. The only question allowed for debate in the national Clinton deathwatch is when the president will walk the plank. At the risk of putting a damper on this orgy of prurience and moral pomposity, we would like to remind the country of two salient points: First, Starr's endless investigation apparently found nothing improper about Clinton's role in Whitewater -- the sole reason a special prosecutor was appointed in the first place. This is why, after years of interrogations and hearings, there is apparently nothing about Whitewater in Starr's report to Congress. (But don't count on the New York Times editors' writing a front-page mea culpa about its irresponsible Whitewater coverage, as the less magisterial San Jose Mercury did when it retracted its "Dark Alliance" report on alleged CIA/contra drug trafficking.) Second, Clinton's personal misdeeds, while reprehensible, are simply nowhere near the stature of Richard Nixon's high crimes or the Reagan administration's efforts to fund a rogue war. Covering up a sexual affair is not an offense against the state. As Carl Bernstein commented recently, Zippergate is no Watergate -- the country will look back on this strange and feverish episode years from now and shake its head in wonder at how it convulsed Washington. (from salonmagazine.com )
Personally, I've detected more than a bit of moral pomposity floating around, but I guess that's all a matter of perception. The Constitution doesn't define "high crimes and misdemeanors", but this stuff seems remarkably picayune compared to Watergate, involving subversion of the political process, and Iran-Contra, involving a couple secret wars, one in direct violation of an act of Congress. And Reagan was proud of it! Impeachment talk didn't go very far there at all. And you want to sermonize, there's always the S&L fiasco, grown to epic dimensions under Reagan, kept under wraps till George Bush was elected, so the pesky matter of the $2billion Silverado failure wouldn't come up. Now, that crummy little $66million McDougal failure, that's a different matter. That's the only S&L that counts, the good Republican congress immunized the rest of them early on. Lots of people "brought down hard and broken" on that one. Jim McDougal and . . . I don't know, certainly not Neil Bush. Back to Salon:
But there is still a strong bedrock of American common sense that resists all the hysterical sermonizing, that understands that Starr's enterprise was a political inquisition from its very birth, and that his marriage of limitless prosecutorial force and political vengeance is a much more dangerous specter than President Clinton's libido. It's this sense of decency and balance that will, we hope, save the country from being torn apart over a matter that should never have been dragged into the public arena.
Then, there's the hard nosed investor who can't resist sermonizing about a politician he disagrees with, brought down with the help of a lot of right wing foundation money. Sure, you don't care what party Clinton belongs to. I don't care what party Starr belongs to, he's not looking out for the nation's interest in my judgement. Not just mine, either. From the Sunday NYT:
"I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it." (from nytimes.com )
Even though that last article is from the alleged bastion of eastern liberal elite journalism, the NYT, it's not the least bit gentle on Clinton, either. The NYT never has been. And this unnamed (presuamably) Republican chooses to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons with Newt in charge. But anybody who sees some moral triumph in this sordid affair has eyes for one side of the aisle only, as near as I can see. That's our Christian Nation for you.
Cheers, Dan. |
