Re: Clinton & Sexual Harassment
My point was that in the case of Clinton v. Jones, it seems that Mr. Clinton is
getting a "pass" for lying under oath and obstruction of justice because of
"subject matter". "Everybody lies about sex" is the refrain we have heard since
the Lewinsky matter was made public.
Betty, I think I get your point. It is just that, as I said in my original response, I thought you were essentially making two points, and I wanted to address each one separately.
Of course, I started with the easier point -- sexual harassment law itself. Is it perceived by the public at large as fair, just, and sensible? The answer, I think, would have to be --no, or at least, not entirely. The controversy over the very concept of sexual harassment --just what is it, anyway? -- antedates Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones case.
To illustrate, let me cite yet one more Salon Magazine piece(I apologize once more for the source), a review of two books on actual sexual harassment cases, one from the U.S. and the other from Australia.
salonmagazine.com
As you will note, the reviewer is uncomfortable with a "one-size-fits-all" theory of sexual harassment. In that sense, I would say her attitude is characteristic of many Americans.
Thus, Clinton has of course has been the beneficiary of this general skepticism about sexual harassment law. On top of that, add skepticism about Paula Jones herself, most particularly about the support she received from Scaife & other "right-wing" adversaries of the President. Then, on top of that, add the widespread suspicion that Starr was trying to "entrap" Clinton, with the aid of the very unpopular Linda Tripp. (Nobody likes a "rat".)
This, in itself, I think, was already sufficient to incline many people to give Clinton a "pass". When you add, on top of all that, what was indeed a common view that a President's private life is his own business ("it's only about sex") that "pass" was assured.
Now, on to your next point:
You say that we have sufficient "kinks" in the law that it could take years to
resolve. That may be true, but until those "kinks" are resolved, we have laws that
are current and must be followed. If we do not hold Mr. Clinton to the same
standard of compliance that we hold every other person involved in sexual
harassment litigation, then we are in fact, making him a "special case", allowing
him to circumvent the law. The Imperial Presidency reigns!
But the sexual harassment case was dismissed, Betty. Clinton's testimony (truthful or not) was ruled immaterial. And then, before the case could go up for appeal, it was settled out of court. The sexual harassment case is over, in short.
Would the judge have ruled differently, had Clinton told the full truth and nothing but the truth? What do you think?
The real issue here, it seems to me, is not sexual harassment per se, but lying under oath, and obstruction of justice.
Both charges have yet to be proved. But suppose they have been. Does it make a difference what it is one is lying about? You are right -- many, if not most, Americans feel it does, if what we are talking about is impeachment of a President.
Should they? That is another question.
My own take is that it is not so much the lying (under oath or not) about a relatively trivial matter that should concern us as what I agree is a disturbing pattern of lying, or fudging the truth, in general. This is one of the reasons I cast a protest vote against Clinton in 1996. Sooner or later, it is bound to affect the conduct of public business, although, at this time, I must confess I do not think it has affected it enough to require Clinton's removal from the Presidency, which might hurt the nation more than it would hurt him. (He can be prosecuted for perjury, etc., after leaving office.)
In general, I think it is time to read (or re-read) philosopher Sisella Bok's Lying : Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. The book created quite a stir, when it came out ten years or so ago. Interesting comment by a recent reader, from the Amazon.com site:
With the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, it is time for this book to be ressurected into public awareness. I would like to know Bok's interpretation of Clinton's grand jury testimony and the impact of his "lying" on his ability to conduct the national business.
So would I. Off to the library!
jbe
|
