Orderly thought on Clinton

National Review, Feb 23, 1998 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

NEW YORK, JANUARY 27

It is impossible for anyone to think about the Clinton business without making certain assumptions. The obligation is to make reasonable assumptions. They are, in this case, that he a) had sex with Monica Lewinsky and b) lied about it. Dismiss (for these purposes) the other stuff, allegedly telling her not to talk, arranging with pals to get her taken care of, the question whether Kenneth Starr acted reasonably in getting the larger mandate, whether Linda Tripp is primarily a fortune seeker, whether she acted ethically in her eavesdropping. Forget it. Stick with the basic assumption.

First question: Did Clinton, by having sex with the girl, break any laws? Derivative question: Does it matter?

There are no laws against consensual sex even if adulterous. At least, no federal laws or D.C. laws. But the scaffolding of this case is a little different in big ways. The editorial writer of the New York Post shrewdly summoned the case of the master sergeant who was given 25 years for imposing sex on subordinates. It is implicit in the military code that the authority of higher rank renders especially heinous sexual misconduct with a person of lower rank. Is there an applicability here, given that the President is Commander-in-Chief and that Miss Lewinsky was a federal employee? The law spares us rigid applications of codes in noncomparable situations, but isn't there enough left over in the senior/subordinate situation to warrant our attention?

Does the age differential concern us? Well, yes: 50 years old over 21 years old implies a bimboization of the relations between senior and junior. It is quite simply unnatural. It smacks of pedophilia.

Does it matter that the sex was adulterous? Well yes it does. Why? Because the Christian law affirmed by Bill Clinton when he attends church on Sundays proscribes adultery. Here we are operating entirely outside the framework of positive law written by legislatures. Is the Christian law a serious law? It is for those who subscribe to it, and Mr. Clinton does. Or says he does. Or--and this is the only perspective we can impose, given a basic familiarity with human conduct--is this merely one more example of the sinfulness of God's creatures? Yes, of course, and God forgives his creatures seventy times seven. But there has to be repentance. Is Clinton contrite? It is safe to suppose that he wishes it had never happened. But it did happen, and contrition is not suggested by claims to innocence.

Isn't adultery to be taken as more merely than an offense done by a single person with consequences visited only upon himself, on the order of profaning the Sabbath, or taking drugs or alcohol to extremes? Yes, adultery is a personal sin but also a sin against one's spouse. That is the reason why most states permit divorces if adultery can be documented. So that we have a sin not just masturbatory in dimension, but a sin of disloyalty to Mrs. Clinton.

Is the role of a President relevant here? Yes, it is. Presidents are expected to have normal appetites. The old tradition of the droit du seigneur encouraged even the notion that the Chief could have his sexual way with whatever subordinate he chose. Well, that really is not the American way. The President is constrained from being a role model because all Presidents need to be ambitious beyond the point of seemliness. In order to appease such ambition it is necessary to stretch truths and engage in theatrical and tendentious reasoning. Put another way, a Socrates or a St. Paul could never run for President and retain his distinctive characteristics. But even making these allowances, the President has to reciprocate in some way the dignity with which he is treated. In speaking to him we say, "Mr. President." When he enters a room everybody else stands up. When he moves out into the street, other traffic is held back. That dignity paid to him requires a reciprocating gear. The President watches his language in public. He is dressed in coat and tie in appropriate situations. He answers his mail. If the President engages in adultery, he denies the dignity of his office.

The only question that bears thought at this juncture is whether Bill Clinton should be forced to resign if he doesn't undertake to do so on his own initiative.

The above is a formal exercise based on the most reasonable assumption given what is now public knowledge.