All houses unholy in Lewinsky affair

A plague on all their houses: Clinton's, the Republicans' and the media's. Now that the verdict's in, I don't feel like I'm trying to be a pundit if I speak my mind. President Clinton deserves all the criticism he gets for his weaseling answers to straightforward questions. "I didn't inhale." Sure, fine. You didn't inhale, but you experimented with marijuana, you held a joint in your hand, which would be illegal in the United States. So you engaged in an illegal activity way back when. Much of your generation of Americans experimented, Mr. President, and they wouldn't bat an eye if you'd said you'd done it. Instead, they squirm because you tried to weasel out of it with a lame excuse. Your dog ate the homework, too, I suppose. If you had been in the United States and the police had caught you holding the spliff, you could have protested that you didn't inhale until you turned blue, but they would have hauled you downtown. "I never had sexual relations with that woman." Sure, fine. Being fellated by a young intern is no more sexual relations than masturbation is, but the whole semantic issue is a misdirection. Fellatio is known more commonly as oral sex. So, whether relations were involved or not, most of us acknowledge that fellatio is a form of sex. President Clinton wouldn't, though. Contrast these denials with candidate Jimmy Carter's avowal that he had lusted in his heart after women. Although lust isn't illegal, admitting to it could have damaged his appeal to his core constituency. Yet, he admitted to his flaws. Given all this, it's understandable that Clinton's political opponents would seize on the president's disingenuous behavior and turn the petty denials of a man who will say anything, however ridiculous, to stay out of trouble into something more sinister. They may be right, but those facts certainly aren't in evidence or the verdict would have gone against Clinton. That the Starr investigation couldn't hang the president except on the idea that Clinton "perjured" himself in the Paula Jones case is either proof that the White House is the most tight-lipped conspiracy on Earth (with the strong implication that Bill Clinton is the smarmiest man on the globe) or that there's plenty of sizzle but no meat. There are probably many healthy American men about Clinton's age who would fantasize about a sexual encounter in the Oval Office. Power is an aphrodisiac, as Henry Kissinger supposedly said. We could only hope that most of them would choose to have the encounter with their wives or, if unmarried, with their longtime girlfriends. Clinton chose to do it with a subordinate, who could have turned on him and charged sexual harassment. It was poor judgment for him to have anything to do with an employee, especially on my dime! Any middle manager with a lick of sense knows enough not to do that, but not the leader of the Free World. Get thee to a one-star motel! The Republicans sin, too The theories fly about why the Republicans wanted to do Clinton in on the measliest of charges. One idea is that this was revenge for Nixon's near-impeachment. The similarities are eerie. If Nixon's sense of decorum wouldn't have been bruised by the idea, he could easily have said "but I didn't inhale." He did, however, say something about not being a crook. When people dismiss the Watergate break-in as a third-rate burglary, they miss its intent. It was part of an effort to, if not rig the 1972 election, to win it at any cost, without regard to the law. Breaking and entering in the defense of your candidate is considerably more like high crimes and misdemeanors than trying to cover up a third-rate affair is. Comedians joked that the Republicans were jealous of all the sex Clinton was getting, but I don't think Monica, Paula or Jennifer would be the belles of any GOP ball. There's also the "Republicans hate Hillary" theory. Hillary Rodham was one of their own long ago, and she converted to the other side. They are personally offended by that and by Clinton's deference to her. When Clinton said that if we elected him, we'd get Hillary for free, he didn't endear himself to the opposition party. Of course, this is the party that gave us Nancy Reagan -- who, like Hillary, was smarter than her husband. The difference, of course, was that Nancy Reagan was publicly deferential to her husband, even if she wielded tremendous influence on him behind the scenes and made him the politician he was. My own theory is that the Republicans are humanity's sorest winners. They lose a few seats in Congress in the mid-term elections and go ballistic. This despite the incontestable fact that they still are the majority party of both houses of Congress, which thanks to our Founding Fathers' checks and balances, means the Republicans wield power that's equal to that of the Democrat sitting in the White House doing all those nasty things. Yet, the party apparently decided they'd been whupped so hard that Newt Gingrich had to go. In addition, they can't stand to look in the mirror. In all things but the way he keeps his zipper up, the president is a moderate Republican, with a tendency to lean right on law and order and economic issues, but just slightly left on social issues such as entitlement. Of course, that last part means he exhibits a considerably less shriveled heart than most Republicans on the campaign trail. It's not that they don't do charitable things, but for the most part they are like the biblical Pharisees, who put on a big show of piety. So, let's tally it up. He cops their rhetoric. He gets more girls than they do. And, worst of all, a large chunk of the populace think he's doing a good job. The general public didn't want him impeached on the House Republicans' superheated claims that Clinton subverted the Constitution by lying under pressure, which many men would have done in similar circumstances. Clinton seemed to have inherited Ronald Reagan's Teflon suit to make him impervious to criticism. For Clinton to have anything in common with the Great Communicator, who was also known to tell a fib or two, must stick in Republican craws. It's the perjury, stupid! Let's take a look at the House managers' perjury argument. Although perjury is a serious offense, I wonder why. The House managers argued that the integrity of the judicial system rests on the belief that you must not lie under oath, and that if the president lies under oath, he must be punished just as any other person in America would be. Sure. This is all true as far as it goes, but they added that perjury by a president would undermine people's faith in the entire judicial system. Pardon me while I laugh. That argument takes as a given that faith in the system exists, that most people actually believe that no one is above the law. Tell that to a gang banger on the streets of Compton. He'll agree wholeheartedly, I'm sure, and he'll add that police never pick on blacks or Latinos. Everyone believes that the rich and the powerful get the same justice as you or I, right? I thought so. (Let me underscore that this is sarcasm, folks.) After Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was uncovered, the general public understood why Clinton lied in this matter and sympathized with his vain effort to protect his family from scandal. The public sympathized even though it was Clinton's actions that brought on the scandal in the first place. They could see themselves in the same position. They figured he was a good president and a flawed human being, but that he was not a criminal. Their desire was that justice, the rule of law, be tempered with mercy. They knew that the House managers were trying to swat a flea with a howitzer. Mercy for Clinton was never in the cards these bitter Republicans held, even though they knew that Richard Nixon had been pardoned after a far more serious case was made against him. Maybe that's why Clinton, unlike Nixon, did not step down as president. Here are some questions I have about lying under oath: If no one is supposed to lie under oath, when defense attorneys know a client is guilty, what do they advise that client to say in court? Do lawyers advise them to tell the whole truth, or do they advise them to put the best spin on the truth? How many arguments would go to court if both sides were telling the truth? In court, the truth is always in question. Why aren't there more findings of perjury, especially in civil matters? Media salivated all along The media held its nose all through this, saying, "Isn't this a terrible story? But it's our job to inform you of every detail," and they dived in to report all the sleaze with gusto. I boycotted TV and newspaper reports about the scandal, and found that even 10 second sound bites on radio still told me more than I needed to know. The president's sexual activity during down time at the Oval Office is not my business. It's clearer now than it has ever been that the news business, despite its stated lofty ideals, is entertainment rather than an instrument of public discourse on issues that matter. The news from Minnesota is not what Jesse Ventura says, but the fact that he is a former pro wrestler turned governor. The news from Washington reduces complex governmental issues into bumper sticker sentiments. That which titillates has precedence over that which enlightens. Copyright © 1999, Salvatore Caputo

Gov. Symington meant business

I know the following column strays a long way from pop culture, but how can any Arizonan ignore Gov. Symington's forced resignation from office after being convicted on seven of 21 felony fraud counts? Like Evan Mecham, Fife Symington ran for governor of Arizona with the promise that he would make government efficient by applying sound business principles. It was a persuasive argument, apparently After all, a public raised on stories about insane patterns of government spending (insert a ridiculous $ figure paid for a coffee pot or a toilet seat here) knows that there ought to be a tougher method of cost accounting. American business with its "leaner, meaner" philosophy of the '80s seemed to have it. Symington appeared to be a successful businessman, dealing in more dollars than Mecham's auto dealership could dream of. So why not give him a try? Could it hurt to reduce the tax load on the average citizen by making government cut bloat? Other people's money Symington, who dealt in millions of dollars, used a sound business principle to make himself the developer of the Esplanade and the Mercado. That principle is that whenever possible you must use other people's money to power your deals. If you can get people to fund your "vision," you put nothing on the line except your reputation. However, your reputation usually has to be pretty good to get savvy people to put up the money. Symington's reputation was good. He knew the art of the deal, and he put deals together the way an artist applies paint to canvas. People believed he could make things happen and were willing to back him financially. In government, he used the same principle, by using taxpayers' money. He got this government deal to go by promising some returns to the taxpayer in the form of reduced income tax. If you didn't look at the toll it took on social-service agencies such as Child Protective Services and the state's aid program to public schools, it seemed like a good deal. Ultimately, though, government -- especially the government of a democratic republic -- is not a business. Self-interest and public interest A businessman has the right to be out solely for himself in business, but government has to look out for everyone's interests. The businessman will try to convince the other guy that a deal is mutually beneficial, but he'll do everything in his power to make the deal more mutually beneficial to himself. (Think of this idea from George Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.") That philosophy doesn't work, though, in government. If there's widespread cynicism about government, it exists precisely to the extent that politicians take the system for all that it's worth, instead of acting as public servants. The system continues to limp along instead of running because of self-serving attitudes in politics. Symington favored business. He showed no sympathy for the average Joe who had to stick his kids in one of Arizona's struggling public schools. How much would even a $50,000-a-year wage earner have to scrimp to put one child through a high-quality private-school education in Arizona? Could even a zero-percent income tax put enough money back in that parent's pocket to make it possible? Business is good Business does make things run, and in general, good business makes good sense. American business has created the standard of living here. However, American business owes its ability to flourish in large part to one of the most stable governments the world has seen. This is not a government that's about to nationalize any industries. (OK, the railroads are the exceptions that prove the rule.) In fact, quite the opposite. Government extends a large helping hand to many troubled businesses. However, because business is powered by self-interest, it can edge toward practices that are not in the public interest. It's costly, for instance, to keep a chemical factory from polluting the environment, and the short-term, bottom-line interests of business would like to avoid that cost. (Having become a modest entrepreneur myself, I face ethical issues every day that make it tough to get ahead. I'm convinced it would be much easier to do business if I didn't have a conscience.) The government is supposed to be responsible for a different kind of cost accounting. It's supposed to ensure the public interest rather than self-interest -- or at the very least, attempt to find a compromise between opposing self-interests. (Although there are many questions about the way government today is shouldering this responsibility, no one has created a model in which business would willingly shoulder the social burdens it creates.) Business is bad Symington, acting in his self-interest, lied to bankers. At least that's what federal lawyers persuaded a jury to believe. This was a crime for which he may well be imprisoned. To my way of thinking, his larger crime was that he used similar false representations -- that he was a successful businessman -- to win election. He will never be put on trial or sent to prison for this, though. There's no law against lying to the voting public. Yet as sure as Symington seemed about his innocence and the soundness of his principles, maybe he really believed that it's OK to lie to bankers. (I can see me misrepresenting my worth to get a loan. Ha!) Then again, maybe he just lied to himself. Copyright © 1997, Salvatore Caputo