The following is an assignment for an ethics class that asks, what's more important in a politician--personal conduct or social conscience and efforts to change things for the better? Take the poll!
The Clinton character:
- Raised by a single mother in small town Arkansas, nevertheless an "up by the bootstraps" kind of guy
- Of stellar intellect, he was a graduate of Georgetown University Law School and a Rhodes Scholar--he is an acknowledged voracious reader and deep thinker
- Governor of Arkansas, two terms
- President of the United States, two terms. Internationally admired for his efforts to secure world peace, most notably in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East.
- Relentlessly stalked by the Republican attack machine, charged and investigated for "crimes" manufactured by his political enemies. Ultimately, he was never charged with any serious crime and virtually every charge was discounted in the meticulously footnoted and referenced book "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conasan. Despite numerous and relentless investigations and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, only one member of his Administration was charged with a crime.
- Post-presidency has followed in the footsteps of the Nobel Peace Prizewinner, Jimmy Carter, with humanitarian deeds of his own. Has established a successful foundation that seeks to negotiate lower drug prices for poor countries ravaged by AIDS. He also gives frequent, thought-provoking lectures as a paid speaker, something universally practiced by all ex-presidents but is uniformly panned by the media in this case because this is, after all, Bill Clinton.
Clinton's conduct:
A draft-dodging, pot smoking womanizer. Performed a consensual sex act in the White House with a rather attractive babe. Like many a married man, he lied about it for fear the wife would castrate him with a meat cleaver. He was impeached for his breach in conduct.
The Bush character:
- Born into a wealthy and influential political family
- Of marginal intellect, entered Yale as a legacy candidate and, by his own admission earned a solid C average. Dodged the last year of duty in the Texas Air National Guard (a cupcake position he received after jumping over 500 other qualified candidates in order to avoid duty in Vietnam) to enter Harvard Business School. Well known as intellectually incurious and is openly disdainful of the "intellectual elite"
- Though a heavy drinker and possible coke head until he was 40 years old, he used the family name and connections to secure various positions as an oil executive, where failure was apparently an option. Though it has so far not been proven, evidence suggests he participated in an insider trading deal while an executive with Harkin Energy to secure the funds needed to buy into the Texas Rangers baseball franchise. While with the Rangers, he traded Sammy Sosa, another in a series of questionable business decisions.
- Governor of Texas, one term.
- Appointed President of the United States by the Supreme Court after losing the popular vote to Al Gore. Presided over the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history. Despite the fact 15 of 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi's, he proceeds to make war on Iraq though there appears to be no connection between Iraq and terrorism--in the process, tens of thousands of innocents are killed. He is nearly universally hated throughout the world as a warmonger. He is also panned abroad for making this appear to be a holy war between Christians and Muslims with his continual, ill-advised assertions that God is on his side. He has, without doubt, made more terrorists by his actions than he has destroyed thus needlessly creating global instability.
- Though it cannot be known at this point (though hopefully it will soon), a G.W. Bush post-presidency will likely follow in the footsteps of his father. The senior Bush works for the Carlyle Group, an association that purchases companies whose purpose is to perpetuate the military industrial complex. Never known for his humanitarian impulses, junior has spent the greater part of his presidency building the fortunes of friends and family associated with the oil and war-profiteering industries. He has pushed through giant tax cuts for the wealthy, marched into a needless war of choice and awarded no-bid contracts in Iraq to major campaign contributors. It is likely Bush family hegemony will be the primary interest of junior in the future.
Bush's conduct:
So far as anyone knows, he has not received a blowjob from an intern in the White House. This is apparently the only measure of good or bad conduct. Therefore his conduct is considered above reproach.
Though my use of adjectives betrays my bias, there is nothing factually incorrect here. Frankly, I don't care if every president uses his power to get the babes, men in power have been doing this since the beginning of time. I don't even care if George Bush stuffed cocaine up his nose up until the day he took office. What I do care about is how they perform on the job. I don't judge my ethics professor's competence to teach based on what he does in his personal life, I base his performance on what he has to say, how well prepared he is, if he conveys the material in a knowledgeable way. I expect him to be there when he says he'll be there and be prepared for any contingency. I would think the same way about my stockbroker, my doctor and my employer. So long as he performs his job well, his personal life is not my business.
In the end, I'd say both Clinton and Bush have numerous personal failings in conduct, both inside and outside the office. But determining the character of a man based on occasional flashes of human frailty is irrational.
The measure of the man is taking into account a lifetime of actions. On this count, Bill Clinton, a rag to riches story if there ever was one, is a man of presidential character, his actions and personal history will earn him the esteem of historians. He will continue to rise in the esteem of the general public as well with his continued acts of duty and good will.
George Bush has been and always will be a miserable failure. By all accounts, he's a personable good-old-boy but history will not look kindly on someone who has been given everything and made so little of it. The Bush machine has the power of propaganda on their side now, but history will ultimately prove this incurious man the weakest character to ever sit in the office of the president. His almost inevitable future in the business of war-profiteering will lower his standing in the general public as well.
In conclusion, I wish we could return to judging our politicians by taking into account their personal history as a whole, not just cherry-picking inevitable incidents of failure as proof of weakness. We should judge the man as the sum of his parts. We should judge him by where he stands on the issues, his actions on the job, his vision for the future.....in other words, on his character. Unfortunately, politics has become entertainment. The politics of personal destruction sells more papers, wins more viewers and riles more listeners. It rewards hypocrisy and hubris. It distorts reality through lies, misrepresentations and disinformation. If we continue to buy into the propaganda without question, we will only get what we deserve--an endless string of empty suit politicians manipulated by behind-the-scenes power whose agenda may ultimately be unknown and unwelcome. Say hello to four more years of George W. Bush.