How About a Presidential DNA Stroll?

By common agreement of the mass media, political pundits and the special prosecutor, it will no longer be possible to judge Bill Clinton’s presidency without exclusive reference to his alleged sexual peccadilloes. The semen-stained dress has set an irresistible standard.

But, heck, why should DNA testing stop with Monica Lewinsky’s frock? Now that the scientific tools are available, why not settle the pressing question of whether previous presidents were guilty of infidelities? By maintaining the polite silence that was traditional in such matters prior to the Whitewater investigation, we lull school children into a false sense of respect for the men who have run this country going back to the founding fathers.

Or should one refer to them as the philandering fathers? Randiness seems to have been quite common among the men who had the vision and courage to found this great nation. At least that’s been suggested by various historians, but this need no longer be left to speculation. With the marvelous tool of posthumous DNA testing, we can brush aside what once were thought of as white lies to protect wife, mistress and family and get at the harsh truth about past presidents. Perhaps we should have Kenneth Starr subpoena Sally Hemmings’ dress to determine the truth of Thomas Jefferson’s relationship to his alleged slave mistress.

Philandering is an enduring and bipartisan American habit, as documented in Carl Anthony’s new biography of President Harding’s wife, Florence, who put up with her Republican husband’s flagrant affairs. This nation was often led by men who were known as players, not the least of them Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who saved this country from the Great Depression and led us to victory in World War II. According to Blanche Wiesen Cook’s prize-winning biography of Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin not only had his well-known affair with Lucy Mercer but had numerous liaisons with other women, including young women on his staff. Clearly the Roosevelts’ “understanding” didn’t interfere with their shared devotion to the well-being of the nation, but the same could be said about the Clintons.

It’s also been rumored that the man who led our troops in the Big War, Dwight Eisenhower, was not entirely without female companionship while wife Mamie stood strong on the home front. The case is much clearer for another war-hero-turned-president, Jack Kennedy, one of our more visionary leaders who stands at the pinnacle of presidents practicing extra-marital sex. Perhaps some old girlfriends will come forward with some items to test so they can assume their places in history.

What a tool this DNA is for parsing the truthfulness of those who presume to lead us! It’s not too late to thoroughly investigate rumors relating to President Bush’s private life. Then there’s his son, George, the next likely Republican candidate, who has admitted to a wild youth. Who knows what he did or who he did it with? All suspect dresses should be submitted before the next GOP convention.

Sexual infidelity is the only issue that matters for the future of presidential politics. The public has roundly rejected this emphasis, but what do the people know? Television pundits tell us the crucial issue for the Clinton legacy is whether he concealed consensual sex between adults. These pundits hype their analyses by claiming that the real issue is lying, but that’s patently false since presidents are expected to lie.

Lyndon Johnson lied when he said victory in Vietnam was possible and caused a million people to die. Richard Nixon lied about the secret bombing of Cambodia. He only got into trouble lying about Watergate because breaking into the opposition party headquarters was more disturbing than destroying another country. Ronald Reagan and George Bush got away with lying to Congress on Iran-Contra. So presidents lie.

But what about members of Congress? Have any of them lied about their own infidelities in divorce proceedings? Or TV anchors, talking-head pundits, investigative scribes or Internet gossips who claim to be shocked by the president’s alleged untruthfulness concerning infidelity? With scientific procedures now available, it’s possible to determine if the shock they express at Clinton’s behavior is honest or feigned.

Since the Whitewater investigation no longer even pretends to be about Arkansas real estate transactions, why not admit the obvious and officially expand Starr’s mandate to include the investigation of everything and everyone, living or dead? Particularly if it’s sex-related.