Pundits have been surprised at how little the American public cares
about
the results of the "ZipperGate" scandal. Even the Economist, with a
front
page headline of "If it's true, go" came out with the opinion that the
matter
was important, and important enough to remove a sitting president from
office.
Most pundits have eventually used the idea that in France, of course,
this
would be overlooked, but in puritanical America?
The French. Why shouldn't we be like the French? How did they get that way? Which particular moment skipped their nation over the edge, on which particular dark afternoon when the newspapers cried foul over some particularly beloved president?
I'm 31 years of age. I was born in 1967, and my parents rushed off to San Francisco in their brand new Mustang Convertible shortly before my birth. These people saw the summer of love close up, although from the Navy yards at Alameda instead of the dope addled flats of Height Street. Now they're in their 50's. They've had their share of marital difficulties, but they have hung though for these 30 years. People at that age are supposed, by pundits, to be the moral backbone of our country. Not retired people writing crank letters instead of going to work, but the elder statesmen of a community, who can still speak with firm voice, and are looked up to for their wisdom. Would they be shocked by Presidential blow jobs? Hardly. Would their son, who has been voting for 12 years and is a well paid 9-5 worker? No.
The blow back against the Kenneth Starr investigation also has its roots in the War Against Drugs, surprisingly enough. The changes in law that have made illegal operations by police officers admissible in court have finally come home to roost in the highest court in the land. We people have seen more and more laws that ban everything, and are then enforced against those who are doing another, legal act. We're tired of it. Adultery is not illegal in Washington, nor in most states of the US. The people, through our legislators, have spoken. We've seen too much cases like a black man driving a nice car who is continually pulled over for speeding and has his car searched for drugs. We've been there when parties of gay people have been busted for "fire code violations". We've read about transit police shooting juveniles in the back.
Kenneth Starr appears to have broken the law by suggesting that Tripp secretly taped a conversation in Maryland, where that is illegal. In the old days, evidence obtained by secret wiretaps was inadmissible in court, but too many people complained about the guilty getting away on a "technicality", so those laws were mostly dropped. Illegally obtained evidence is admissible, as long as it was obtained "in good faith". In this case, the "good faith" was that the permission was obtained after the tapes were recorded. There are few judges who find against a policeman in those circumstances. Great, huh? The police feel free to record your personal conversations, and if they find anything incriminating, get a court order on the strength of evidence just gathered, otherwise they destroy the evidence of the taping.
It's also true that that form of wiretap isn't a federal offense, and the grand jury is federal. Still, no Maryland DA has supeanead the tapes for an investigation of illegal wiretaps. The press avoids all of these issues, but we remember.
Now we read press stories that invariably say the "investigation of the president's affair and possible perjury", and realize what's happening. The carefully written sentence which doesn't specify what is being investigated triggers alarm bells.
The press deserves a special circle of hell for their own place in this travesty. The slope has been long and slippery, but it has lead to this. Over the years, we have seen more and more news stories where the story was "Joe Fred said today that XXXXXXXXXX". Then we saw article after article where it just said "A senior official said XXXX". Now we're reaching even further, where papers report each other, as in "Newsweek reported today that So-And-So may have testified to Such-and-such." All of these things appear to fall within the old journalistic rules, and tell no lies, but they don't tell the whole truth. The old rules were surrounded by practices drilled into the head of every journalism student. Don't print without two sources. Use an unnamed source only as last resort. Use non-attributed sources for background. Don't use a source if you think they are lying, or if they have a good reason to lie. Don't use weasle words like "may". What "may" happen isn't news. Printing quotations as news is only true of high governement officials, everything else belongs on the opinion page.
Finally, it comes down to this. If he did perjure himself, and "suborned perjury", should he be found guilty? Yes, completely. It's a misdemeanor offense that never draws jail time. Should he be thrown out of office? Hardly.
The president's detractors have said that a man doesn't just lie once. If he lies now, how can we trust him to not lie again? First, I don't want a president who can't lie. Let's imagine Kennedy talking to Krushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy had to convince the Russian head of state that he was able to plunge the entire world into anarchy. Let's say he had said the truth, "Well, I probably don't have the guts, but, er, I might, so don't push it, please?" Nope, he had to play the meanest ass hand of poker that's ever been played, and I'm glad he could tell something other than the truth. If America was founded on truth, someone forgot to tell the Native peoples. And, we would probably have a law, somewhere, against lying. Lying is a critical skill, and needs to be excersized carefully and in moderation.
What's worse, lying in the state of the union address, lying about campaign promises, being beholden to special interests, or giving a false deposition when cornered by some underhanded prosecutor? I'd rather see news stories about the lying that Clinton did on the campaign trail, or votes made by congressmen in support of their financial supporters. The cynicism in my heart comes deeply from the Iran-Contra investigation. That was about the federal branch subverting the will of the people, and nothing changed.
I, personally, feel some backlash in my own heart about the Paula Jones investigation, from which all this dirt comes. A law was passed at the federal level where, in a sexual harassment suit, the accuser's past sexual history can't be considered as evidence, but the accused can. I think this is wrong. I've been in situations where there have been sexual misunderstandings, and all evidence needed to be thought through. There's rarely anyone there but the two people.
The line between consent and coercion is hazier than dogmatists will admit. Have I had sex with someone when I didn't want to? Sure. I've done it because they did for me sometimes when it wasn't what they wanted to do most, or I fooled myself into thinking I wanted to and regretted it later, or did it because I thought they might dump me if I didn't. Is this coercion? In each case, I was the one who decided to say yes, and my partner respected that. As I always have done with my partners. Many people are willing to go what I consider overboard in defense of women, and men are not considered with the same latitude. The justification is given that there is always an implied power relationship with the man being the most powerful. If this was ever true, it certainly isn't now. If I was sleeping with Senator Feinstein [ which I'm not ], who is the more powerful?
As a finale, a word to the women I've heard out there who say there
are
no "decent men left". This comment is usually made about San Francisco,
where
decent means "straight". Any thinking man thinks twice before getting
in
a sexual relationship. If you make a mistake and your partner decides
you
raped her, you're at a decided disadvantage. If you and she get
pregnant, she makes the decision about whether you become a father. If
you do, she may
decide that she wants you to pay all the bills for the next 20 years,
and
you never get to look at your child. 20 years. Think about it, women,
and
then ask if you would do the same. And you wonder why you meet men who
thing
with the little head instead of the big one. What would you expect with
laws
like that?