Breaking the Spell of Eloquence

Is it possible that the Democratic members of the House and Senate slept soundly on Monday night, confident in the knowledge that all questions relating to Monica Lewinsky had been laid to rest by President Clinton’s mini mea culpa? To believe that, you would have to accept that these hardened politicians had succumbed to a mass suspension of disbelief akin to peasants beholding a heavenly apparition.

It may be that the public, eager to put behind them the uncomfortable thought that this likable president is a sneak and a liar, will cling to anything that resembles an apology. But are the Democratic members of Congress such slaves to public opinion polls that they will even make note of the emperor’s nakedness? Do all the expressions of incredulity have to be off the record or tactfully nuanced to the point of hypocritical blandness?

At turns contrite, defiant and full of wounded innocence, Clinton’s remarks are an insult to ordinary intelligence. Yes, presidents are entitled to have private lives, but they are not privileged to have secret lives. You know going into it that an American political career leaves you open to a degree of scrutiny that is unparalleled in the democratic world, so if you want to carry on affairs, make passes at women other than your wife or succumb to the allure of a twentysomething intern, you either remain in the private sector or seek elective office in France or Italy where anything goes.

The higher up you go, the more you need to be mindful of this choice. Trifling with teenage baby-sitters has spelled the end for lesser politicians. Is the president to be left to a less lofty standard?

Clinton, apparently a believer in the “Third Way” in all things political and personal, believed he could have his cake and eat it too. He seems to have concluded that the possession of power would enable him to avoid agonizing trade-offs.

The stakes for Democrats are very high and go well beyond the diminishing chances that they will recapture the House in November or that Vice President Al Gore might not be sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001. They go to the question of collective rectitude. The readiness of so many Democrats to accept even the feeblest partial admission by the president as a dispositive of the whole problem of his truthfulness is downright craven. The president and congressional Democrats are clinging to the same piece of wreckage in the hope that they can ride out the storm. Although no one has commanded them to stand fast in the ranks, there is a fear that if Democrats reject the sufficiency of Clinton’s explanation, that will allow the Republicans to claim that dissatisfaction is now bipartisan and will open the floodgates of impeachment.

One encouraging aspect of the Watergate scandal was the disposition of at least a few Republicans to cast a jaundiced eye on the denials and evasions of the Nixon White House. There seems to be, in the present case, even more cause for doubt and incredulity that what is at issue is merely the president’s private life and a problem that can be set right with a little prayer and few family truth sessions. Is it possible that solicitude for the Clinton family is what is prompting so much Democratic silence? A more likely explanation is the president’s ability to maintain high approval ratings and his prodigious fund-raising skills.

Redeeming the honor of the Democratic Party by calling on the president to stop his blame-shifting and his resort to legalistic obfuscation will be an unpopular job, but some Democrats have got to do it. Republican criticism is easily discounted, although it is becoming more prevalent. The Democrats need to break the spell cast by the president’s self-serving eloquence.