With Monica Lewinsky back in
the limelight, Fox News aired a snippet of Bill Clinton’s deposition concerning
his affair with her. There was Bill once
again dogging and weaving, doing the best he could to change the subject. Alas, he was eventually cornered and forced
to tell a bald-faced lie.
This was not an inspiring performance. It was painful to watch the president of the
United States behaving like a trapped schoolboy. Worse, however, was to follow. A stained dress was to prove that Clinton
perjured himself when he assured the American public he “did not have sexual
relations with that woman….”
Yet what ensued? Especially after Clinton was impeached,
Democrats rushed to his defense. Among
other things, they argued that he was only lying about sex. According to them, everyone lies about sex
and therefore it was no big deal.
Nevertheless, what they
refused to acknowledge is that not everyone is obliged to lie about sex. Most are faithful to their spouses and
therefore do not need to sweat when subjected to legal grilling. To imply that coving up an indiscretion is perfectly
all right is thus to endorse it.
One of the things I learned
in social psychology over a half century ago is that when people make a public
assertion, their commitment subsequently increases. Thus, if they publicly approve of a sexual
transgression, they are apt to double-down on their approval later on. Likewise if they openly excuse a lie, they
are apt to continue excusing it.
Sadly, the need to “move on”
from Clinton’s misconduct opened the floodgates. Ever since, we have been sliding down a
slippery slope toward accepting more and more political corruption. Lies have become standard operating procedure
and character assassination an honored mode of political discourse.
During Clinton’s impeachment
converting Lewinsky into a media piñata became a national obsession. She was portrayed as a squalid floozy who
seduced this otherwise admirable man into committing an understandable peccadillo. Never mind that he had a history of sexual
offenses and needed to be protected from “bimbo eruptions.”
Or consider the unhappy case
of Kenneth Starr. Before he investigated
Clinton, he was a respected attorney.
Yet while doing so, he was transformed into a religious fanatic who
scandalously abused his power by asking questions of witnesses such as
Lewinski’s mother.
Bill, and his wife Hillary,
had a field day vilifying anyone who delved into his reckless behavior. Still, for this, journalists lionized
them. They were evidently skillful
politicians because they won the battle for public opinion. That they did so viciously and dishonestly
did not matter.
In this manner are political
cultures born. Thus do corruption and mendacity
become accepted ways of transacting business.
One of the subsequent manifestations of this development was the barbecuing
George W. Bush received for allegedly lying about WMD’s in Iraq. In fact, it was his Democratic accusers who
lied.
Bush was mistaken about the
WMD’s; nevertheless he told the truth as he understood it. Assured by the intelligence agencies that
these weapons were there, he too was a surprised when they were not found. Hence, calling him a liar was not based on facts,
but a need to balance the books. For
Democrats, moral equality could only be reestablished if a Republican president
was dragged down to the level of his predecessor.
Nowadays this same pattern
of deception and vilification persists. Indeed,
Barack Obama has transformed it into the normal way of operating. Like Clinton, yet more so, he regularly charges
his political opponents with being dastardly scoundrels. Thus Romney was depicted as depriving a dying
woman of medical care and aching to start a cold war with Russia.
So here comes the next
act. With a special committee having
been appointed to investigate Benghazi, we can be sure its Republican members
will be portrayed as vengeful partisans.
As for the evidence they uncover, it will be dismissed as dishonest
and/or irrelevant.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment