Lerner on Whitewater

* In response to “There’s Plenty of Hypocrisy, but Whitewater Is Not the Key,” by Michael Lerner, Commentary, April 18:

As one who thinks “deeply about politics,” I agree that people are “self-interested” and “selfish” both politically and personally. I do not believe, however, that Americans have a “collective fantasy that our politicians must be morally better than we are.” We only want them to be as good as they say they are. When the President called Hillary the person of “the highest moral character” he has ever known, it makes one wonder what kind of company he has been keeping.

Regarding those at a town hall meeting who asked the President, “Why should we trust you?” The lack of trust was not, as Lerner has suggested, because the Clintons have not fought for their principles. It was because the Clintons have not found their principles.

GEORGE La FOUNTAINE

Granada Hills

* The prolix piece by Lerner was, as Macbeth would have put it “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” His sterile phrase “the politics of meaning” certainly has a seductive literary ring to it, but his piece is typically liberal, denouncing “economic, political and social institutions” en masse, without recognizing that, while there are some such institutions fostering “selfishness and cynicism,” the vast majority of them function in this country to generate the standard of living, the stability, the technology, and the charity, that the U.S. (and Lerner) enjoys. But he refuses to acknowledge this because it does not square with his political agenda.

His is the very hypocrisy that he denounces, but fails to acknowledges in himself, or the fellow political travelers that he cites and supports.

PAUL S. McCAIG

Dana Point

* OK, let me see if I got this straight. It was 12 years of Reagan and Bush that caused a malfunction in the Clintons’ moral compass and we all need the government, via a big dose of the “politics of meaning” to relocate our moral North Pole. I think Michael has a tough sell.

TOM CULP

Dana Point

* Re Garrison Keillor’s column, April 15:

How dare Keillor begin my day with wit and common sense. How dare he defend a President who had no courtship, let alone a honeymoon, with the new media ethic which says “no privacy for anyone, no compassion for anyone, no innocence even when proven not guilty.”

God bless this man who is brave enough to defend a young vibrant man who keeps his smile, humor, intelligence and a head of steam, despite the meanness of more than Yuppies. This President is a target for anyone who has no knowledge of history and who contain the whitest blind hatred I’ve seen since Pearl Harbor. Amen, Garrison. Maybe you can replace “William Satire and George Won’t.”

SANFORD R. GOODKIN

Del Mar

* Your editorial “Can’t They Get It Straight?” (April 13) was applauded by my family as well as acquaintances for its straight forwardness. Running our government is not just another “deal.” We have to be able to believe what the White House spokespeople state from the President on down the line. It just is not happening. The credibility is gone.

Sorry folks, the full-page support tactic “We Interrupt This Newspaper to Give You the Facts!” of April 14 from private citizens is not impressive. Americans have the right to question the President and First Lady when story after story have to be corrected after the facts come out. We don’t quite believe the thought process of politics of Arkansas is not being practiced in Washington.

SUZANNE PAINE

San Gabriel

* Recently, with the stock market falling, President Clinton has been sending economic advisers around to talk shows and editorial boards to tell Americans that Wall Street is still “sound.”

I think President Clinton can keep his advisers at the White House. All he needs to do to inspire confidence is to tell everyone that “Hillary is back in the market.”

JOHN M. HENDRY

Van Nuys

* Surely in this country we will soon have detox centers, for those who have gone off the deep end on Whitewater. They have been drinking too much tempest from teapots, and it shows.

PRISCILLA LAZZARA

La Puente

* Why is it that when there’s a Republican in the White Huse the Democrats waste time and energy digging up dirt on them, and when a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans play the same dirt-throwing game?

Wouldn’t it be more productive it the opposing party spent their time and energy coming up with ways to help the elected party make this country a better place to live?

CASSI GLISPER

Los Angeles