why we hate.
I had a conversation with a fellow yesterday after lunch concerning Bill Clinton's visit to Indy yesterday. We got onto the topic of his presidency and his impeachment, which I have always maintained was nonsense. It made me realize I never published the following piece, which I wrote about two or three years ago. It's all about how Bill Clinton was, quite simply, reviled by conservatives and they would attack him for anything; including presidential pardons. I suppose we're seeing the flipside of that, some would argue, as lefties express their hate for Dubya these days. Anyways....
Here goes:
How We Love to Hate
Bill Clinton may not be in office, but he’s still a favorite target for rabid right wingers
Despite George W. Bush taking office in early 2001, it’s apparent that a favorite sport of the right-wingers in the U.S. continues to be Clinton-bashing. Even as an ex-officio president, it seems Clinton still raises the ire of Republicans near and far. It truly makes me wonder who is more powerful: Dubya or Bubba?
From the blow job about which he lied, to unsubstantiated views that he is a supporter of NAMBLA to the furor over his 11th-hour presidential pardons, Clinton still captures the imagination, if not ire, of his detractors. Why? Simple. He was bulletproof. He was more Teflon that John Gotti. And it pisses you off.
For me, it’s funny some of the time, and troubling the rest of the time. It irks me when Clinton-bashers will search for any reason – despite its validity – to hate him.
Any reason.
Was he a scoundrel? Probably. More so than his predecessors? Hardly. The last 30 years alone provided us a president who aided in covering up a break-in at DNC headquarters and a president on whose watch an illegal arms-for-hostages scandal took place. And let’s not forget what went on during LBJ’s term in office. And, of course, all the ensuing follies –questionable pardons, etc. – as they pertain to the aforementioned transgressions. Which has become the most recent raison de hate.
Clinton was heavily criticized for his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. It certainly was questionable and nobody doubts that. But where do his pardons stand in the eyes of history? Woefully mediocre. Clinton issued 456 presidential pardons, which is slightly higher than Ronald Reagan’s 406. Contrary to what the Clinton-bashers would lead you to believe, this sort of controversy was not invented by Clinton. Hell, it wasn’t even perfected by Clinton! Don’t believe me? Well, consider these presidential pardons:
Andrew Johnson pardoned Samuel Mudd in 1869.
Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa in 1971.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974.
Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers in 1977.
Ronald Reagan pardoned Armand Hammer and George Steinbrenner (yes, that George Steinbrenner) in 1989.
George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger in 1992.
Clinton’s flurry of pardons, while suspicious, is nothing new. I’m not suggesting that we, as a people, should not be concerned about the use (or abuse) of presidential clemency; it is something that should get our hackles up. But to direct it at Clinton and Clinton alone is simply playing into the hand of partisan nonsense. Hate to break it to the partisan loonies on both sides of the aisle, but neither Democrats nor Republicans are sole evil-doers.
In terms of presidential pardons, what should outrage Americans is how the privileged get all the breaks. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican issue, it’s one of rich vs. poor. As commentator Arianna Huffington said in her Feb. 14, 2001 www.salon.com column, “Justice for the Rich”:
“The hearings proved that America is two nations not just when it comes to poverty, health insurance, education, housing and -- as we discovered this election -- voting but also when it comes to breaking the law and getting away with it. Try stealing a few hundred bucks from a 7-Eleven; odds are you won't be represented by Jack Quinn, Scooter Libby or Leonard Garment, and the place you'll be going won't have a cozy fireplace and freshly groomed powder trails.”
So when you boil it down, is a hummer from an intern so bad? Well, yes, I actually think it is. An impeachable offense? Not so fast. Yeah, yeah. I know. I hear the indignation in your voice as you repeat to me “he lied under oath!” Let me finish the sentence for you: “…about a blow job!”
To me, it does and should matter what is the subject of the lie. Lying about an extramarital affair is wrong, no doubt. But in terms of national policy, I think it rates pretty low compared to what happened during Reagan’s watch.
And while we’re on the subject, let’s not forget Clinton is hardly the first president to have extramarital affairs while in the Oval Office. John F. Kennedy continues to be the gold standard of philanderers at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Of course that doesn’t make Clinton’s actions acceptable or even palatable. However he alone should not be criticized over it.
If we want to level tired platitudes about morality and justice in politics, then let us not excuse the actions of Kenneth Starr. Wasn’t he supposed to be investigating the Whitewater scandal? We start with a case about criminal financial activities at Whitewater development and it turns into the most expensive Penthouse Letter in American history? Just for laughs, go find the Starr Report on the Web and do a quick search for the words “oral sex.” Then do the same for the word “Whitewater” and compare the numbers. To save you the time, I already did it. Final score: 87-4. In favor of “oral sex.”
I digress.
One of the most inflammatory allegations I’ve personally heard levied against Clinton is his supposed support of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Is there any truth to it? Absolutely not. I’ve found nothing to support such a claim. And it’s not for lack of trying.
The closest I can get to this involves the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), which was granted UN consultant status under the Clinton administration. It was later learned that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA. ILGA’s status has since been rescinded and NAMBLA was shown the door, but apparently the perception that Clinton supported pedophilia has stuck.
Yet another classic example of how the misguided zeal of Clinton-haters hampers their own cause. Granted this brand of hatred usually spews from the poisonous ramblings of the Bob Enyarts and Jerry Falwells of the world but the problem is they have quite an audience who go along with it. The lengths to which people will go to make themselves comfortable with their own, fucked up views never ceases to amaze me.
Clinton is disliked for his policies and views about gun control, foreign policy, abortion, and so on down the line. That’s understandable. Such is the nature of being in politics, and that’s refreshing. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up and telling our elected officials we disagree with what they’re doing. But the anti-Clinton movement gained momentum by playing dirty pool and acted to merely throw whatever it had at this guy and hope it would stick. When in doubt, call him a pedophile-sympathizer, I guess.
That same zeal fueled the now-debunked stories about Democratic vandalism in D.C. prior to Bush taking office. The story received much attention on all the major news networks and left the outgoing Clinton staffers looking like petulant children. Too bad it wasn’t true, eh? But you probably didn’t know that.
Oh well, whatever it takes to pin down those with whom you disagree. Even if it means lying, right?
Required reading
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/vivienne/438/rants59.html
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/14/justice/
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/06/bankruptcy
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons.htm
Here goes:
How We Love to Hate
Bill Clinton may not be in office, but he’s still a favorite target for rabid right wingers
Despite George W. Bush taking office in early 2001, it’s apparent that a favorite sport of the right-wingers in the U.S. continues to be Clinton-bashing. Even as an ex-officio president, it seems Clinton still raises the ire of Republicans near and far. It truly makes me wonder who is more powerful: Dubya or Bubba?
From the blow job about which he lied, to unsubstantiated views that he is a supporter of NAMBLA to the furor over his 11th-hour presidential pardons, Clinton still captures the imagination, if not ire, of his detractors. Why? Simple. He was bulletproof. He was more Teflon that John Gotti. And it pisses you off.
For me, it’s funny some of the time, and troubling the rest of the time. It irks me when Clinton-bashers will search for any reason – despite its validity – to hate him.
Any reason.
Was he a scoundrel? Probably. More so than his predecessors? Hardly. The last 30 years alone provided us a president who aided in covering up a break-in at DNC headquarters and a president on whose watch an illegal arms-for-hostages scandal took place. And let’s not forget what went on during LBJ’s term in office. And, of course, all the ensuing follies –questionable pardons, etc. – as they pertain to the aforementioned transgressions. Which has become the most recent raison de hate.
Clinton was heavily criticized for his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. It certainly was questionable and nobody doubts that. But where do his pardons stand in the eyes of history? Woefully mediocre. Clinton issued 456 presidential pardons, which is slightly higher than Ronald Reagan’s 406. Contrary to what the Clinton-bashers would lead you to believe, this sort of controversy was not invented by Clinton. Hell, it wasn’t even perfected by Clinton! Don’t believe me? Well, consider these presidential pardons:
Andrew Johnson pardoned Samuel Mudd in 1869.
Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa in 1971.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974.
Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers in 1977.
Ronald Reagan pardoned Armand Hammer and George Steinbrenner (yes, that George Steinbrenner) in 1989.
George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger in 1992.
Clinton’s flurry of pardons, while suspicious, is nothing new. I’m not suggesting that we, as a people, should not be concerned about the use (or abuse) of presidential clemency; it is something that should get our hackles up. But to direct it at Clinton and Clinton alone is simply playing into the hand of partisan nonsense. Hate to break it to the partisan loonies on both sides of the aisle, but neither Democrats nor Republicans are sole evil-doers.
In terms of presidential pardons, what should outrage Americans is how the privileged get all the breaks. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican issue, it’s one of rich vs. poor. As commentator Arianna Huffington said in her Feb. 14, 2001 www.salon.com column, “Justice for the Rich”:
“The hearings proved that America is two nations not just when it comes to poverty, health insurance, education, housing and -- as we discovered this election -- voting but also when it comes to breaking the law and getting away with it. Try stealing a few hundred bucks from a 7-Eleven; odds are you won't be represented by Jack Quinn, Scooter Libby or Leonard Garment, and the place you'll be going won't have a cozy fireplace and freshly groomed powder trails.”
So when you boil it down, is a hummer from an intern so bad? Well, yes, I actually think it is. An impeachable offense? Not so fast. Yeah, yeah. I know. I hear the indignation in your voice as you repeat to me “he lied under oath!” Let me finish the sentence for you: “…about a blow job!”
To me, it does and should matter what is the subject of the lie. Lying about an extramarital affair is wrong, no doubt. But in terms of national policy, I think it rates pretty low compared to what happened during Reagan’s watch.
And while we’re on the subject, let’s not forget Clinton is hardly the first president to have extramarital affairs while in the Oval Office. John F. Kennedy continues to be the gold standard of philanderers at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Of course that doesn’t make Clinton’s actions acceptable or even palatable. However he alone should not be criticized over it.
If we want to level tired platitudes about morality and justice in politics, then let us not excuse the actions of Kenneth Starr. Wasn’t he supposed to be investigating the Whitewater scandal? We start with a case about criminal financial activities at Whitewater development and it turns into the most expensive Penthouse Letter in American history? Just for laughs, go find the Starr Report on the Web and do a quick search for the words “oral sex.” Then do the same for the word “Whitewater” and compare the numbers. To save you the time, I already did it. Final score: 87-4. In favor of “oral sex.”
I digress.
One of the most inflammatory allegations I’ve personally heard levied against Clinton is his supposed support of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Is there any truth to it? Absolutely not. I’ve found nothing to support such a claim. And it’s not for lack of trying.
The closest I can get to this involves the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), which was granted UN consultant status under the Clinton administration. It was later learned that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA. ILGA’s status has since been rescinded and NAMBLA was shown the door, but apparently the perception that Clinton supported pedophilia has stuck.
Yet another classic example of how the misguided zeal of Clinton-haters hampers their own cause. Granted this brand of hatred usually spews from the poisonous ramblings of the Bob Enyarts and Jerry Falwells of the world but the problem is they have quite an audience who go along with it. The lengths to which people will go to make themselves comfortable with their own, fucked up views never ceases to amaze me.
Clinton is disliked for his policies and views about gun control, foreign policy, abortion, and so on down the line. That’s understandable. Such is the nature of being in politics, and that’s refreshing. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up and telling our elected officials we disagree with what they’re doing. But the anti-Clinton movement gained momentum by playing dirty pool and acted to merely throw whatever it had at this guy and hope it would stick. When in doubt, call him a pedophile-sympathizer, I guess.
That same zeal fueled the now-debunked stories about Democratic vandalism in D.C. prior to Bush taking office. The story received much attention on all the major news networks and left the outgoing Clinton staffers looking like petulant children. Too bad it wasn’t true, eh? But you probably didn’t know that.
Oh well, whatever it takes to pin down those with whom you disagree. Even if it means lying, right?
Required reading
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/vivienne/438/rants59.html
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/14/justice/
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/06/bankruptcy
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons.htm
