by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 15, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

esponding to president Clinton wagging his finger and forcefully denying his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky back in January, U.S. senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said, "I believed it and believed it totally," and when he 'confessed' on August 17, 1998, "my world came crashing down." A little overstated— to be sure — but senator Feinstein’s sentiments may be a step ahead of mainstream America. While America catches up, growing numbers of Americans are cracking out of their denial and dealing with their own hurt, now forced to acknowledge that the nation’s most respected role model did not tell the truth. Whether we choose to admit it, all the partisan bickering, excuses and rationalizations, can’t undo what’s been done.

       "Don’t expect to find elected officials without fault," said former U.S. senator Paul Simon (D-Ill), "but we must insist on candor." "I loved and trusted that man," said textile worker Michael Thomas, "and now I’m just plain mad." "How could he 'blow it' over such a trivial thing," comments paralegal Sally McClendon, "there was so much at stake!" Grappling with prevailing wisdom that--at the end of the day — the president only lied about ‘sex,’ many people are struggling to keep recent events in perspective. Right? After all, Clinton didn’t order a burglary, subvert top military secrets, or violate any known laws: He had an affair and lied about it. Something which — many suggest — any other American would have done. But all such attempts to rationalize Clinton’s indiscretions don’t seem to be working. What’s really at stake? Why won’t this matter simply die on its own? Was his behavior really so unforgivable?

       When president Clinton took to the airwaves back in January — implementing the advice of the 'best' legal and political minds — and categorically denied any relationship with Monica Lewinsky, his presidency turned a different corner. He chose to violate the single most important principle on which our constitutional democracy is based: Telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. When he raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth in the Paula Corbin Jones deposition, the president — like any other citizen — faced the same consequences. Lying under oath or elsewhere cannot be tolerated. No lawyerly dissembling, mincing words or splitting hairs can ignore the fact that the truth is the truth. Deciding that it was his best strategy to not tell the truth, president Clinton crossed a dangerous line. Suggesting — as many have — that all presidents and politicians lie, can’t dismiss the fact that there can be no compromise when it comes to telling the truth. What kind of precedent would this send to future generations of American leaders?

       Back in January when the Lewinsky scandal first broke, the president had the option of saying, "No comment!," or, as some suggested, just saying — as a matter of principle — "he’s not going to discuss his private life in public." Whether we accepted it or not — he wouldn’t have placed himself or his presidency in the kind of jeopardy he now faces. Yes, many Americans feel hurt and betrayed because they genuinely liked president Clinton, the man, and the policies he represents. His message and programs were clearly on the American pulse. With his 'bridge to the 21st century' now teetering, America feels on shaky ground. How can you blame anyone for feeling upset? No one wants, as senator Feinstein remarked, to have their hopes and dreams crushed. But slowly, Americans are facing the ugly prospects of having to accept the possible loss of the most popular democratic president since John F. Kennedy. Recent polls suggest that the American public are clinging to their wishes, not facing the growing reality that Clinton’s mantle of power is slipping away — and, by accepting this fact, the pain runs deep.

       "I will never lie to you," said Jimmy Carter to a hurting nation, struggling to heal its painful wounds in the wake of the Watergate trauma. Twenty-two years later, Americans still take Carter’s promise seriously and vow that lying — for whatever reason or for whatever rationale — cannot be tolerated. National security arguments aside, deliberately misleading the American people — as Clinton admitted to — punctured that precious commodity known as public trust: The very heart of the president’s 'moral authority.' No one wants change — certainly not all the anxiety, disruption and difficult adjustment that goes with it. But once public trust is shattered with its 'moral authority,' the president’s capacity to lead is irretrievably disabled. Although his policies still embody the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the American people, Clinton — as a leader — no longer does.

       For too long the debate has focused on sex and controversial legal issues, not the president’s fitness to serve in his elected position as the nation’s number-one role-model. With recent revelations — as those likely to come — rehabilitating his credibility and fallen image have gone by the boards. Wrangling about whether to release incriminating evidence — like the president’s August 17, 1998 videotaped testimony before the Federal grand jury — can’t ignore the fact that the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal has moved beyond political posturing and strategic public relations. By continuing the denials and blowing more smoke, the president’s legal team are making matters worse: Antagonizing congress is a risky gambit. There’s a time and place to stage persuasive legal arguments.

       Taking inventory to date, what we have is an American public holding on to past images not yet up-to-speed with current revelations about president Clinton and many of his key players. Many people are still in a state of denial that — as trivial as this whole matter seems — what happened at the White House was incompatible with the high principles and traditions of our most sacred institutions. And this is no time to lower the bar. Yes, the American people have a right to be hurt and angry that their president sold them out for his own narcissistic gratification. If the president were sincerely committed to his policies and loyal following, why would he have risked everything by engaging in such reckless behavior? What could have been more selfish? Faced with the looming prospects of losing his presidency, is it any wonder that the public’s still in a state of disbelief?

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.