I've heard it over and over again. People just can't seem to understand how Clinton can get impeached "because of a BJ" and yet Bush can't get impeached for admittedly breaking the law. It must be a vast right wing conspiracy! I hate to burst your bubble, but it's really very simple. The Clinton impeachment was never about perjury or adultery.
So why the contradiction of logic? Why is history unfolding in this most precarious fashion? I see three main reasons.
- To ERODE the public image of our political system. There seems to be a bipartisan concensus among politicians regarding the public image of our political system. Politicians benefit from an electorate that views our political system as a farce. People who believe that our system is a farce or a fraud will lose their will to participate. This helps the vast majority of politicians because a reduced electorate enhances the importance of money in politics. I'm not going to take any time to explain why this is so, because I view it as the first most basic lesson to learn about the American political system. I have to assume I'd be preaching to the choir. We all know how our sytem really works don't we? The Clinton impeachment is just another example of how farcical our system is, and so the message we receive is that we shouldn't even bother participating in it, lest we lose more brain cells.
- To set a precedent that suggests to the public that all politicians are held ACCOUNTABLE for even the slightest misconduct. This is absurd, of course, but can you see how at least some people would get that impression? I've heard many people say... "Well, Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob so Bush most not really have done anything wrong. It must be just another case of partisan politics." The Clinton impeachment was a huge propaganda victory for both sides because neither dems nor repugs like to be stereotyped as "corrupt politicians." The general public started to think "Man these politicians really have it rough. They're sooo under the microscope!" But in fact quite the opposite is true.
- This is the main reason. The WMD factor. We all know what WMDs are dont we? Weapons of Mass Distraction. The media dropped a big WMD on the people with the Clinton impeachment. But what I wonder went on behind the scenes? Who knows? Everyone was too busy either defending or criticizing the Lewinsky debacle. It doesn't take a genius to see how this benefits Washington in a bipartisan way. There weren't too many people talking about outsourcing, or the sale of the port of Long Beach to communists. But then it begs the question... why not do the same with Bush? Aren't WMDs the best thing since sliced bread? The answer is... not at the moment. If Bush were impeached for actually commiting a crime it would send a huge shockwave through the entire political system. No one wants that. No one wants the public's focus to shift on questions of whether Bush lied us into Iraq. No one wants to talk about the gross deception with those tax cuts. Impeaching Bush would be like pulling the thread that unravels our entire political paradigm. The Clinton impeachment was so absurd that very few people asked the following type of question: "Well if Clinton lied about that, then what else has he lied about?" The answer is "Quite a bit," but nowhere near the scale of BushCo's lies. Imagine if we spent $40 million investigating the lies of this administration. It would most likely be a whitewash like the 9/11 commission, but can anyone take that chance? No. Politicians are "selectively bred" by our system to be self serving, and it just doesn't benefit them to seek the truth.
To summarize, the Clinton impeachment had no adverse effect on the Clinton/Bush/elitist agenda. It was able to move forward while the spotlight was pointed off in the weeds. But an impeachment of Bush would point that spotlight a lot closer to the real problem. It wouldn't totally highlight the hideous monster lurking in the shadows; not enough for everyone to notice. But a few more people surely would. Too many.