Announcing early: a suggestion for Bill Clinton - way for Clinton to fight off conservatives

Commonweal, June 3, 1994 by David R. Carlin, Jr.

The time has come for President Bill Clinton to announce that he will not run for reelection in 1996. Taking his cue from Lyndon Johnson's 1968 announcement, he should tell the nation he wants to devote all his energy to working on his agenda: national health care, welfare reform, restoration of economic health.

The effect of such an announcement would be to quiet his conservative critics and cut down the size of their audience. These critics (of whom Rush Limbaugh and the American Spectator are the most conspicuous) are motivated by opposition to Clinton's political agenda, but they find that the most effective way to retard that agenda is to attack Clinton (and Ms. Rodham Clinton) personally, by keeping the focus on Clinton sex-and-money problems.

If this personal assault continues, the president, despite his enormous governing skills, will end up with a so-so record of accomplishments; not to mention that he won't be reelected. But if he can quiet his critics, whose audiences won't be so troubled about his personal sins once they're assured he'll be gone after 1996, he may yet accomplish much.

As I write this, it is the second week in May, only a few days after Paula Jones filed her suit against the president, alleging that he propositioned her back in the days when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee. The details of her accusation, if true, suggest that Clinton has something less than Cary Grant's smoothness when approaching women.

I don't know if the charges are true. Certain of the alleged details are so gross that it is hard to imagine the governor of any state being guilty of them--even a bush-league state like Arkansas, even a governor as horny as Bill Clinton. On the other hand, the charges are consistent with a pattern laid out in earlier allegations.

But if it isn't Paula Jones, then it's Whitewater. And if it isn't,t Whitewater, it's state trooper revelations. And if it isn't state troopers, its Hillary's cows. And if it isn't Hillary's cows, it, s Gennifer Flowers. And if it isn't Gennifer. . .well, you get the idea.

There, s no end to this kind of thing. And from what we've seen of Bill Clinton over the past two years, there's probably more to come. And from what we know of Clinton's enemies, if there's more to come it will certainly be found. And given the nature of the American press today (where tabloid media have the power to force the New York Times to cover stories it would prefer to pass up), when it is found, we the public will certainly hear about it.

Oh, I know, I know. An elected official, s private sexual conduct is one thing, his conduct in public office something else. As long as Clinton does a good job as president, what do we care what women he meets in motel rooms and back seats of automobiles? In fact, I've made the argument myself in this column: once when Gary Hart was forced out of the 1988 race for president, and again when John Tower was nominated in 1989 by President George Bush to be secretary of defense.

I still hold that view. Courage, justice, honesty, industriousness, good judgment, etc.: these are essential virtues for high public officials. Chastity is not. After all, this is America in the late twentieth century; it is not Massachusetts Bay in 1650.

But enough is enough. If Clinton's sex life, no matter how promiscuous it may turn out to have been, were genuinely private, the nation could tolerate it. But I'm very doubtful we can tolerate an endless parade of highly public sex stories about a sitting president. The president of the United States is not merely the head of government (like John Major), he is also the head of state (like Queen Elizabeth). That is, he is a great symbol of the nation, something like the American flag. He is the nation itself condensed and personified. How sullied can a symbol become before it loses its symbolic value?

One of the ways we teach children how to be American is to tell them stories of the presidents: Washington at Valley Forge, Lincoln the self-made man, FDR overcoming polio. . .and Clinton? Though much of his curriculum vitae is inspirational, Clinton is becoming increasingly unavailable for edificatory uses. It is becoming harder to resist the urge to cover the ears of the nearest child when the president's name is mentioned.

Besides, it isn't a matter of philandering only. Whitewater and cattle futures are about money. What's more, the sex stories involve allegations that state troopers assisted Clinton in picking up women. Worse still, the Paula Jones story, if true, is a very serious instance of sexual harassment.

It will be said that none of this has been proven. That's debatable, but I'll waive the point. My complaint is not that these charges have been proven but that we have to listen to them at all, or at least that we have to listen to them without respite for many months at a time. Up till now it has been many months, but eventually, I suspect, it will be years at a time.

Clinton's problem is that he is trying to govern a highly polarized nation, a nation that is rapidly moving toward a condition that might best be described as cultural civil war. He would sincerely like to be the president of "all the people," and by temperament he is suited for this mission. Anyone who can show genuine sympathy for both the gay movement and Richard Nixon, who can show genuine admiration for both Harry Blackmun and traditional Christian values, certainly has a broad reach. Clinton is a friendly, well-intentioned, warmhearted guy. Absent the financial and sexual accusations, he might well be just the person we need to bridge the abyss that divides the Right and Left in this country.