Contact: Sammy McDavid
This editorial opinion piece is written by John F. Marszalek, Giles Distinguished Professor of History at Mississippi State University and author of just-released "The Petticoat Affair: Manners, Mutiny and Sex in Andrew Jackson's White House" (Free Press of New York). He can be reached at telephone (601) 325-3604 or e-mail jfm1@ra.msstate.edu.
Since January of 1998 the Monica Lewinsky case has dominated the airwaves and newsprint, and reporters have increasingly asked one question. How is it possible that, despite all these allegations and then the president's confession of an affair and his lies about it, despite the Starr Report and the videotape, that the American public consistently continues to support Bill Clinton in his presidency?
The regular journalistic answer has been some variation of "It's the economy, stupid." The American people are allegedly so pleased with their economic lives that they are willing to accept a sexually sinning president in order to keep him working for their security.
Certainly, the economy is part of Bill Clinton's continued popularity. But, people's opinions are never formed in such a monolithic way. Despite Karl Marx's insistence that economics is THE driving force in history, the past provides too many examples of people acting against their economic interests. Clinton's popularity comes from the economy, yes, but from other sources, too.
Unlike many other presidents, this man is no father figure, not even an uncle figure. He is middle aged everyman, fighting his waist line; trying to straighten out his golf swing; shopping for his wife and family in the mall; cheering for his favorite athletic teams; jogging to preserve his health and his youth and then accidentally tearing something in his leg and thus proving his mortality.
He is everyone's idea of a good friend. He's smart, and he's a charming rascal. He's not someone to be put on a pedestal. He's just Bill, after all, hardly perfect but his heart is in the right place.
Despite his flaws, he's likable, he gets things done, and he has guts. Every time he seems to be down, he bounces back.
He also is beneficiary of the "cry wolf" syndrome. Even before his election in 1992, there was a steady litany of accusations. One "gate" has opened on another. Political enemies have even falsely accused him of the murder of his friends Vince Foster and Ron Brown, concocting vast conspiracies despite repeated factual conclusions to the contrary. The airwaves are filled with talk radio gurus and televangelists making money by lambasting him. Some reporters a while ago noted that all this criticism might some day inoculate him against all accusations. More correctly, it is the public that has been inoculated. There is just too much, too often, for the public to find it damning.
The public also has watched with growing apprehension the growth of the independent counsel's power, authority, and intrusiveness. Why investigate Whitewater, something that had happened before the president took office, people wondered. Looking into the FBI files and other White House matters made sense, but the sheer volume of the accusations made it all look suspicious. Was this likable man really this evil? When the independent counsel's attention shifted exclusively to a matter of sexual infidelity, the public grew increasingly perturbed, the obsession of the media only adding to the feeling.
People wonder: how would I fare if a staff of attorneys with unlimited power, bottomless finances, and as much time as they wanted, investigated my life? What if the press put me under a microscope? I know I'm not perfect: I certainly would not want some of my transgressions or stupidities made public. When the independent counsel subpoenaed the mother of Monica Lewinsky, the secretary of the president, the Secret Service agents, and the president's advisers and lawyers, the public shuddered. Is there no one that Bill Clinton (or anyone else) can safely turn to in time of legal peril and personal embarrassment?
The Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984 has seemingly arrived. The public worries that this Big Brother has become so big that even the president of the United States is not safe from his intrusive eye. And, if the president, the nation's friend, is so vulnerable, what about me?
Why do the American people stand by Bill Clinton? Because they are standing by themselves, protecting their own shortcomings, their own privacy. The public understands that Clinton is not a saint, as they know that they themselves are hardly sinless. They wish their good friend had not been so stupid as to carry on with "that woman," but they wonder what they would have done in a similar situation (or what they've done in their own lives in a variety of their own embarrassing situations). So, the American people continue supporting their flawed friend and hope the whole thing will go away--for him and for themselves.