Back to Jim's Brain Online

Zippergate: A Scandal for the Nineties

I'd thought about staring this off with the story of how some friends of mine burned an American flag. Believe it or not, this would have been a funny story. It would be not a story about doubt and disillusion with the United States. They burned the flag respectfully.

Then they roasted marshmallows over it--fruit flavored marshmallows. They did that respectfully too.
The American Flag
Anyway, that was as close to an uplifting story as you can expect to find on this site. From there it all goes downhill. That's because the topic for today is red, hot, flaming--

SEX!

Well, maybe not that hot or that flaming. You probably know what I'm referring to and hopefully you are bored to death with it, but somehow just interested enough (despite your better judgement) to read just one more thing on Monica Lewinsky and the rest of Zippergate.

At bottom (legally speaking) the main point of the case is whether or not Clinton coerced Monica Lewinsky into lying.  That's what the lawyers are ultimately trying to prove.  That's all.  Amusingly, this is not the question the public or the press seems most interested in.  Legal definitions are hard for non-lawyers to understand (that's why we have lawyers) and so people focus on the aspect of the situation everyone can understand.
 

SEX!

You know what I mean?

Bearing that in mind I plan to keep the subject in the gutter where it belongs.  This is not to say that I favor having sex in a gutter, but rather that I deeply suspect that speculations about who had sex with who are not particularly useful for the country.

Amusingly, many people seem to share this opinion.  Clinton's polls have actually gone up since the news broke, leading one to imagine that the American people are not so much upset as approving ("Clinton screwed some college student?  Yesss!").  As long as Clinton appears to be doing a good job as president ("It's the economy, stupid..."), no one wants to impeach him.
 
 And that's okay.  When you think about it, we really don't know a whole lot.  Mainly we have tape recorded talks in which Monica Lewinsky claims to have had oral sex and steamy phone calls with Clinton.  We also have her denial on those very same charges as taken for the Paula Jones case.

And oh yeah, we have a tape recording of her talking with Linda Tripp and discussing about whether to lie in the deposition. That and the Secret Service guy who said Monica went into the Oval Office for 40 minutes.
The Washington Monument is NOT a phallic symbol.
What we don't have are witnesses to Clinton and Lewinsky doing anything.

 And that's exactly the kind of thing we need.  Because if they didn't have

 
SEX!

then no one had any need to do anything wrong at all.  Which why it's worth finding out and why it's worth withholding judgement for the moment.

Personally I'm not terribly freaked out by the idea of the president doing the nasty with someone other than his wife.  Leaders do it a lot.  I imagine that being extremely powerful tends to make people extremely attractive.  You can probably make a list as large as I can of leaders who may have schtupped someone other than their wives--Kennedy, Eisenhower, Martin Luther King, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jefferson, and so on.

I'm not saying it's right, but whom would you prefer in office--Roosevelt or Jimmy Carter?  Carter was moral and Roosevelt was phenomenally competent.  That's the problem.  Morality and ability are not necessarily combined in one package.  I wish I could say they were.

Here's my hope:

I hope that we have so many sexual scandals that they become boring.  I don't want people to think betraying one's partner is right, but I don't think the national interest is much served by concentrating on the President's bed partners when we could be concentrating on more important things.

As I see it, we should be concentrating on who we are as a nation and what we want to become.  Maybe we want to become a nation in which no politicians have sex outside of marriage, but I suspect that even impeaching Clinton wouldn't affect that very much.
 

ŠJames E. Zoetewey 1997.
 
  1