The Arguments of Moral Cripples

©1998 by Dale Franks

It has been an interesting and enlightening experience to listen to the arguments made by President Clinton’s staunchest defenders regarding the Lewinsky affair. In each case, the arguments both resolutely ignore the evidence against the president and attempt to place blame on others for Mr. Clinton’s predicament.

The first argument one hears is that the Lewinsky investigation is what Charles Grodin calls, "the greatest invasion of privacy I have ever seen." Had Mr. Clinton met with Ms. Lewinsky in a Georgetown apartment, then the privacy argument might have weight. Mr. Clinton’s behavior ceased to be private, however, when he had sex with a low-ranking employee in the White House during the workday. In almost any corporation in America, that behavior would certainly not be considered private. Indeed, it would be grounds for immediate termination. If you want your behavior to be considered private, you don’t engage in it at work.

Another argument is that many Republicans, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, have had affairs as well, so it is therefore hypocritical for them to make a judgment about Mr. Clinton’s affair. Of course, the House is not judging whether Mr. Clinton was right to have an affair. They are judging whether Mr. Clinton Lied under oath, obstructed justice, and abused the power of his office. Had a Republican committed those acts, then they would be hypocritical; however, the affair itself is not the cause for the investigation, but rather the alleged felonies that were committed to cover it up. That is a large and important distinction. Also, even if the hypocrisy argument was valid, it is still not a defense for Mr. Clinton. The president is still responsible for his own acts, no matter what acts are committed by others. The fact that others may have done wrong does not change the fact that Mr. Clinton did as well.

Next, Mr. Clinton’s defenders argue that this whole affair is the result of a conspiracy to destroy the President. This is an interesting notion, but even if true, it is irrelevant. If you do not do anything wrong, then others cannot find evidence of wrongdoing. But doesn’t it say something about the president’s judgment if, knowing he was a target, he engaged in acts that are grossly inappropriate or illegal? It seems to me that if others are eager to destroy you, then you have no one to blame but yourself if your behavior gives them the ammunition they need to do it.

The President’s apologists say that Mr. Clinton didn’t actually lie, but rather, by using very particularly contrived definitions for "sexual relations" and being "alone" with Ms. Lewinsky, he was actually telling the truth. Those are very narrow and legalistic definitions of the truth, especially since those narrow distinctions are not ones that anyone uses in everyday life. There is a fairly commonly held definition to those terms. If you doubt it, I suggest you ask your spouse whether she would allow you to take refuge in such fine distinctions about "sexual relations".

Finally, Clinton partisans tell us that the Europeans believe our current preoccupation with the Lewinsky Affair is silly. As if the Europeans had some moral superiority or sophistication that we lack, and that perhaps we should, therefore, abide by their conventions. Frankly, I have little regard for arguments about European moral superiority in, well, anything. After having spent the best part of this century either ignoring, appeasing, or participating in aggression, genocide, and dictatorship, and then requiring American political, military, and economic power to rescue them from the consequences of their folly, the Europeans have no moral capital left.

The one common strain in all of these arguments is that they ignore the President’s conduct. Instead, their sole purpose is to deflect attention away from the truth about Mr. Clinton’s conduct, and to focus on issues that are essentially irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Clinton is guilty of the acts that are alleged. Knowing that Mr. Clinton has erred, his defenders have chosen to ignore that fact, and to do everything possible to disguise it under a barrage of counter accusations.

The truth often makes one uncomfortable, and facing unpleasant truths is often painful. When faced with the truth about Mr. Clinton’s behavior, the ethical response is to accept it, along with the consequences that arise from it. But if you know the truth, and intentionally deflect attention away from it simply because you don’t like it, then you are a moral cripple.

Top