Broaddrick Story Deserves Attention As Cultural Test
By Morton M. Kondracke
Conservative moralists are dispirited by the public's reaction to the Clinton
scandals, but polls indicate that American culture may not have collapsed after
all.
Even though President Clinton's job approval ratings remain stratospheric, his
ratings for personal trustworthiness are subterranean.
In a mid-February CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll, only 35 percent of those
surveyed judged him honest and trustworthy and 62 percent did not, just about
the reverse of his job performance ratings.
In a January CBS News poll, only 30 percent of adults surveyed said Clinton
shares the moral values by which most Americans try to live. Sixty-four percent
said he does not -- including 51 percent of Democrats. His job approval was 64
percent.
What's this dichotomy all about? To moralists like former Education Secretary
Bill Bennett and conservative activist Paul Weyrich, it's evidence of cultural
confusion, callousness or collapse.
Bennett vows to continue speaking out. Weyrich is tuning out. Bennett told me
that Arkansas nursing home operator Juanita Broaddrick's charges that Clinton
raped her in 1978 "ring true," that the conduct is "vile, criminal" and that the
media should question Clinton supporters -- especially feminists -- about the
case.
Weyrich, by contrast, has given up on politics as a means of shaping American
society, claiming that the country "is very close to becoming a state totally
dominated by an alien ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture," as he wrote
in a letter to friends.
"If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been
driven out of office months ago. It is not only the lack of political will on the
part of Republicans, although that is part of the problem.
"More powerful is the fact that what Americans would have found absolutely
intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates, but
celebrates."
It's true, most Americans think he perjured himself and obstructed justice in the
Monica Lewinsky case, but tolerate him enough to want him to stay in office
and celebrate his job performance.
It is evidence that the country's moral standards have changed since the days
when divorce or adultery were disqualifications for the White House.
The standard now is more utilitarian and the President is viewed more as a
policy magistrate than a moral example. If the economy were bad or American
troops were being killed, his job standing surely would suffer regardless of his
personal behavior.
On the other hand, his personal approval ratings are a measure of the country's
cultural standards and will be part of Clinton's historical legacy, including
what's taught to schoolchildren. Clinton's numbers indicate that the country
does know right from wrong.
And Clinton's personal numbers will sink even lower if Broaddrick's charges
become widely reported upon and discussed -- as probably will happen even if
the mainstream media underplays them, thanks to late-night comedians and
Internet gossips.
As Bennett says, it's important that the case be investigated and ventilated
even if it's not possible in the end to prove whether the charges are true.
Even if it doesn't affect Clinton's political standing, Americans should come as
close as possible to understanding just what kind of person Clinton really is.
In the Lewinsky case, the public seems to have bought the argument of
Clinton's supporters that the sex involved was consensual and that, in the end,
nobody was hurt -- especially not the U.S. constitutional system.
The idea that Clinton would have sexually assaulted a woman, biting her lip to
impose himself on her, totally alters the general impression of him as merely an
amiable lecher and turns him into a monster.
There are certainly weaknesses in Broaddrick's allegations -- notably, that she
once signed a sworn affidavit denying the incident -- and investigations may
demolish them as completely as happened with the recent tale of Clinton's "love
child."
On the other hand, Broaddrick herself seems a credible source -- reluctant to
come forward and seemingly without any personal or financial ax to grind.
Why the media have been so skittish about publicizing Broaddrick's charges is
puzzling. To some extent, it's probably because, at first, only NBC News' Lisa
Myers had an on-the-record interview with her and wouldn't run it until
Wednesday night.
Now, of course, other organizations have reported on the story -- but in a
curiously tentative way, at the bottom of page one in the Washington Post, on
A-16 in the New York Times, on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
The media may be smitten -- momentarily -- with scandal fatigue and may be
wary, along with Republicans, of suffering further public criticism for digging
dirt instead of attending to the nation's public business.
To some extent, too, editors and reporters may find the implications of the
Broaddrick story, if true, just too horrible to contemplate: There would be a
rapist in the White House and little anyone could do about it.
There isn't anything to be done about it -- legally or politically. But people can
make up their own minds about it. It's a cultural test. |
