| January 4, 1999 WHY CLINTON CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN HIS POPULARITY I hope each of you had a joyous New Year. According to a very recent poll, President Clinton is the most admired man in America. The Pope finished second. I am sure that the Pope is presently reading the Starr Report to find out what he needs to do to improve his admiration rating. The continued popularity of Clinton has confounded pundits for eleven months now. How is it that a guy who got less than 50% of the vote in both 1992 and 1996 is experiencing approval ratings of over 70% at the exact time he is being impeached? Instead of telling you my explanation of this phenomena as of January 4, 1999, I am going to tell you my explanation as of early February 1998, just a few weeks after the scandal broke. The following is an article I wrote in early February in response to the first polls that showed that people had a low respect for Clinton while at the same time approving his job as President: According to the opinion polls, a majority of Americans simultaneously believe that President Clinton had an adulterous relationship with a White House intern and that President Clinton is doing a good job in his duties as President. Can it truly be the case that a significant majority of Americans are uninterested in and unconcerned about the very real possibility that the President committed adultery in the White House, lied about it under oath, attempted to cover-up both the adultery and the lie, lied about the adultery and cover-up after the affair was revealed, and finally, without being explicit, asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent? Unmistakably, many of the President's defenders are nakedly political. Obviously, if Newt Gingrich was alleged to have had an affair with a 21 year old intern and then tried to cover it up, one can easily predict a change of perspective from many of the President's defenders. The poll numbers, however are too high to be explained away as a knee-jerk support of the President. Something more is going on. Based upon my unscientific sample of friends, coworkers, acquaintances, and callers to talk shows, the polls are accurate. There is certainly curiosity, titillation and the enjoyment of a good joke, but, other than those who already dislike him, there is simply no outrage at the President. What is striking is the cynicism of these generally apolitical defenders of the President. I have yet to discover one person who believes the President has been truthful about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Each believes that the President engaged in a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. If pushed, each will then concede that the President has probably lied about the affair and may have taken steps to cover-up the relationship. Notwithstanding these concessions, each of these defenders believes that this conduct is simply not important, because it is unrelated to his Presidential duties and the President's extramarital affairs are simply none of our business. This view that the private life of the President is not relevant is rather new and was certainly not shared by the Founding Fathers. In creating an office in which the entire executive power of the United States is concentrated in one man, a very controversial proposal that brought on charges of "monarchism," the Founding Fathers had in mind George Washington, a man who believed that personal character and reputation is everything, a man who, as the legend goes, never told a lie. George Washington traditionally provided the ideal on which all later Presidents are judged. According to this view of the Presidency, the President represented and symbolized the United States. While people assumed that a President would necessarily have to be political in a narrow sense on occasion, people also believed that the President, as opposed to the Congress, was infused with a moral authority that rose above narrow politics. In times of war, natural disaster, economic dislocation, and social instability, people looked to the President for leadership and a perspective that was not grounded in political self-interest. Inseparable from his role as national symbol, the President was expected to be a man of character, someone to look up to, to emulate. While people believed that Congress was undoubtedly full of thieves and degenerates, the President was supposed to be of a different quality. Cognizant of their responsibilities to set an example, Presidents took great care to present a happy family life to the citizenry, to attend church, and to otherwise uphold "traditional values." While it is certainly true that not all Presidents lived up to the ideal, each took the responsibility of setting a public example quite seriously. Fast forward to the 1990s. George Bush and Bob Dole, both legitimate war heroes, made character a central issue in their campaigns. Both were soundly defeated by a man facing charges of adultery and draft-dodging.. Fully aware of Bill Clinton's private character, people voted twice for the man. People analyzed, and continue to analyze, Bill Clinton no differently than they would analyze a man who was selling them a used car. Just as people assume that a used car salesman will engage in puffery, if not outright lying, to close a sale, people have come to expect that Bill Clinton will not be entirely truthful in discussing an issue, but just as people tolerate the lying of a car salesman if he has the right car at the right price, people tolerate Clinton's deceit as long as he is associated with a good economy. To many, the recent elections, and the recent polls, represent an unprecedented moral relativism, a refusal to be "judgmental." There is much to be said for this view. However, this cynical view of the role of a political leader is not knew. It was given its greatest defense almost 500 years ago in the writings of a Florentine bureaucrat by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli. The phrase "Machiavellian" survives as a critical appellation for one who is devious and ruthless in the pursuit of a chosen end. However, what Machiavelli actually had to say has much relevance for those trying to understand the Clinton scandal and the reaction of the citizenry to the scandal. In his writings, Machiavelli argued that the "virtue" of the political leader was different from the "virtue" of, say, a good Christian. For instance, a virtuous Christian is supposed to turn the other cheek, forgive all who have sinned against him, etc.. Machiavelli argued that any political leader who followed these Christian principles and turned the other cheek whenever he was wronged would not last as a leader and his country would suffer. Therefore, according to Machiavelli, the "virtuous" political leader must be, in certain circumstances, ruthless, dishonest and every other pejorative one can think of. The implications of Machiavelli's writings are enormous and have been debated ever since. One of the necessary implications of Machiavelli's thought is that, because there is no necessary connection between private morality and political effectiveness, one cannot judge a leader by his private morality. One must be "realistic" -- the good ruler is the one who secures the borders and ensure the people are well fed, and any conduct that does not affect the material well-being of the governed is not relevant to whether the ruler is a good ruler. Based upon the recent conduct of the President, his wife, and his advisors, they apparently agree with Machiavelli that the traditional rules of morality do not apply to the leader of a country. In fact, precisely because they believe that Bill Clinton's continuation as President is indispensable to the success of the nation, they may believe that he is ethically required to deceive the citizenry about his sexual activity. One of the problems with Machiavelli, and a reason why he has been criticized for the past 500 years, is that if you take Machiavelli seriously, you end up questioning not only the importance of traditional morality in politics, but in all aspects of life. After all, if honesty is not the best policy for a politician, why would it be the best policy for any other vocation in our society? In fact, there are books available at your local bookstore that attempt to apply Machiavellian principles to business management. Whether Machiavelli advocated it or not, the endgame of a Machiavellian society is a society that is entirely amoral, without principle, expedient. People tell the truth not because it is a good thing to tell the truth, but because telling the truth at any given moment will advance their interest at that given moment. The President has decided that, at this time, not telling the truth is in his interest. The President's decision is a political judgment that the American people will let him stonewall without serious consequences. If the President determines in the future that it is in his interest to share part or all of the truth, there can be no doubt that he will do so. What we do know for sure is that he will not tell the truth because it is the right thing to do. A majority of the American people are aware of the game the President is playing, but, for the time being, do not seem to care. I do not know if Bill Clinton keeps a copy of The Prince at his bedside. It does not matter. More significantly, somewhere along the way, a large portion of the American people apparently absorbed the spirit of The Prince and lowered their expectations of the Presidency, which lowering of expectations Bill Clinton is relying upon to survive as President. Therefore, to all of you who believe that the President's private life is none of our concern, that lying is acceptable from our political leaders, be prepared to accept that you are, in a very real sense, a "Machiavellian." |