• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

The Clinton/Lewinsky scandal

by Simon Longstaff

The circumstances surrounding unproven allegations that US President Clinton was involved in a sexual relationship with a White House intern, Ms Monica Lewinsky, that he gave false sworn testimony about this and that he was involved in an arrangement designed to ensure that she do the same, raise a host of questions touching on the standards of conduct that we might reasonably expect from people holding high office.

It is understandable that nearly all of the attention has been focussed on the President. However, he is not the only player in this sordid little drama. What are we to make of the actions of Ms Tripp, who allowed her friend, Monica, to unburden herself while all the time secretly taping the conversation? Was this an abuse of trust and friendship - or the act of a true patriot, who placed the need of her country to escape the hold of a compromised President before all else?

Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, has been accused, most notably by Mrs Clinton, of pursuing a political agenda designed to destroy Mr Clinton's Presidency. It could be true that this is Mr Starr's only concern. If this is the case, then there is something tawdry about his pursuit of the President. At the very least, this would involve a complete lack of sincerity in his attempt to portray Mr Clinton's actions as a species of serious moral turpitude.

Yet, it is equally plausible that Mr Starr is genuinely concerned to discover the truth and to see the laws of his country upheld. He may be perfectly sincere in his belief that it is fundamenatally unjust for any citizen, let alone the President, to suborn the system of justice. If this is what motivates Mr Starr, or even if he merely feels compelled to do his duty, then the fall of a political 'enemy' may be, for him, a merely coincidental advantage.

Likewise, the frenzy of media interest in this affair is most comfortably dressed in the clothes of righteous indignation and a proper concern for the standing of the institution of President. However, at least some of the feeding frenzy is likely to have been fed by baser motives - the scent of blood in the water, the whiff of hot gossip.

Those looking for the 'hanging offence' that will mark the end of the Clinton Presidency have tended to focus on the question of whether or not Mr Clinton played a role in shaping Monica Lewinsky's evidence in the Paula Jones case. Should this prove to be the case, then it is highly likely that Mr Clinton will either have to resign or risk impeachment by Congress. Mr Clinton made a solemn oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. To betray that promise would be to lose any authority to govern. Of course, politicians are known to break all manner of promises. There are some occasions when they do so in the genuine belief that this is required in the service of a greater good. No such defense would seem to be available in this case. If ever the allegations are proved, then that will be the end of the Clinton Administration.

But what of the alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky? Why is this considered to be a titillating but subsidiary question? One reason is to be found in the fact that many people believe that the private sexual activities of public figures should remain exactly that - private! Allied to this view is the argument that affairs of the heart (or loins) have little, if any, bearing on affairs of state. It's only when the two become mixed, as in the case of the British politician, John Profumo, who shared the favours of a prostitute with a Russian spy, that the public might be said to have a legitimate interest. Or so the argument goes. But it may not be so simple.

We might remain agnostic about the ethical status of Mr Clinton's alleged relationship with Ms Lewinsky per se and still be troubled by it.

For example, if the allegations prove to be true, then what do they tell us about Mr Clinton's quality of judgement and therefore, his fitness to hold the office of President - and the awesome power that goes with it? Here we have a man who is already surrounded by scandal as a result of alleged extra-marital dalliances. We have a man who must surely know that his every move is being scrutinised by political enemies. He is a man whose credibility in this area must be close to rock bottom, who risks the very Presidency if he makes an error of judgement. It is almost unthinkable that such a man would risk everything for a series of casual sexual encounters in the oval office.

If it turns out that this is what he has done, then people would seem to have a legitimate worry that his judgement will fail again - but this time, when it really matters. Put simply, people must wonder whether or not Mr Clinton has the character to resist his urges and instead put duty first.

Or, perhaps we should suspend judgement and reflect on the fact that this drama is being played out by ordinary human beings. We all have feet of clay and should temper the outrage with a little compassion. Yet, being a frail human being has never been reason enough to escape the consequences of our actions. While it is true that we are all subject to our desires, it is also true that human beings have a capacity to exercise free will and choose in favour of duty rather than desire.

Of course we want our leaders to be human. But we also want them to represent is best in us. We know we are frail – but occasionally we need our leaders to demonstrate that it is also possible to be strong.

discuss this article

---