Letter to the NY Times: Bill Clinton

As stated in your lead editorial today (12/20/98) regarding the issues now in front of the U.S. Senate,  ...they and the country face the problem of dealing with a battered President whose calculated strategy of lying over the airways and under oath has prolonged this crisis...".Therein lies the real dilemma.  We have to ask, are we better off with a senate trial and conviction, a meaningful censure that diminishes the President, or a resignation.  Those are our options and none are pretty.

It is unfortunate, but Mr. Clinton has permanently lost credibility with a large portion of the American public, including many who would like to see him continue as President.  We can hope that no serious crisis arises during the next two years to test his ability to lead, but that may be dangerous wishful thinking.  Is it really in our best interest to see Mr. Clinton finish out his term, or are we simply blinded by our desire to deny his opponents the satisfaction of his removal?  They are separate questions and we must decide the former without regard to the latter, difficult as that may be.

The Global Implications of Bill Clinton's Character

Bill Clinton’s presidency is being rocked by scandal that should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his history of twisting the truth and denial of wrong-doing (can anyone name one instance in which he was forthright in admitting any failing on his part?).  While it may appear that the substance of this scandal (an alleged illicit affair with a White House intern and subsequent attempts at cover-up) is trivial, the underlying moral vacuum that gave rise to such a situation has vast policy and national security implications.

The nation and the world currently face a major geopolitical threat in Saddam Hussein and his apparent stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.  Facing down this threat will require a leader with the moral authority to act from a position of strength, a position that our president cannot claim at this moment, and probably never could.

Some (though surprisingly few) will argue that this crisis is the result of George Bush’s decision not to pursue Saddam at the end of the gulf war, thereby letting him off the hook.  Upon closer evaluation, however, one can see that the decision to end the war when we did was our only realistic option.

We must remember that the coalition that fought the gulf war was a fragile one at best.  It required skillful diplomacy to gain support not only from our closest allies (Great Britain, Germany, France, Canada, etc.) but also from traditional opponents of U.S. policy including Syria, Iran and the Soviet Union (let us not forget that the Soviet Union was still in existence at that time).  Incredibly, we also secured Israel’s neutrality despite their historic hatred and distrust of Iraq.  Gaining this commitment required an incredible amount of trust in our word – both in assuring Israel that we would defend them and that we would not over-reach on our objectives, which would have caused untold outcry in the Arab world.

This coalition was built upon a series of commitments made by the United States, and enacted through the United Nations, that the ultimate objective of any military action taken in the gulf would be solely to force Iraq out of Kuwait.  While it is entirely likely that we could have easily driven into Baghdad, successfully removing Saddam was more problematic, and even then was more likely to create havoc than avoid it.

Consider the implications had we gone beyond the original intent of the war.  Simply going into Iraq would have violated the UN resolutions and called into question our credibility.  Given the widespread animosity toward the U.S. in that part of the world (particularly the view that we are an imperialist nation intent on domination), there can be little doubt that the support from the region’s nations would have evaporated quickly.  At that point all bets are off and we are no longer the leader of a moral and universally accepted action, but instead a reckless and untrusted intruder in the region.

Even if the coalition did miraculously hold together, removing Saddam was not a simple matter of finding and eliminating him.  There is no way that we could just go in, get him and get out without leaving a power vacuum in one of the most volatile (and economically desirable) nations on earth.  We would have found ourselves in the unenviable position of either 1)  trying to install a new regime whose legitimacy would have been under immediate suspicion, or 2)  finding ourselves in the role of occupying conqueror in one of the most hostile places on earth. 

Neither of these outcomes are either desirable or workable.  Consider our effort at installing democracy in Haiti.  This is a nation so weak that our first attempt at landing Marines there was met with a rag-tag group of inhabitants wielding sticks and machetes.  Yet it was just last month, nearly three years after being virtually welcomed in, that we were finally able to withdraw the last of our troops.  Compare that to what we would have encountered had we tried to impose a new government in Iraq.  The quagmire could have made Vietnam look like a mere blip by comparison.

Of more concern than trying to rule an unruly nation, however, would be the damage done to our credibility among all nations.  Why would anyone ever trust our word again in any conflict in which we sought to take the leading role.  It is a position we simply could not afford to find ourselves in.

As a result, we stood by our word and decided to use the coalition to force Saddam into compliance with terms of surrender through use of embargoes and inspections.  For eighteen months the coalition held firm and progress was made.  However, there was a change in leadership in the U.S. and the coalition has steadily broken down.  Today, not only are Syria and Iran no longer reliable supporters of inspection efforts, but neither are such expected allies as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or even France.  Part of this is due to economic pressures arising from desire for Iraqi oil, but mostly it is due to the lack of leadership from the United States.

Unlike politics in the U.S., where we are easily swayed by style and sound bites, in the world of diplomacy only two things matter – the strength of your convictions and the trustworthiness of your word.  Unfortunately we have a president who possesses neither.  While it was popular during the 1992 election to dismiss Bill Clinton’s prevarications as insignificant, demanding instead that we  “stick to the issues”, his character did matter and today we are paying the price – not for a silly sexual dalliance in the White House, but for a lack of power and prestige arising entirely from the character flaws we so cavalierly disregarded six years ago.

Open Minded?

On more than one occasion I have heard a person of liberal persuasion consider themselves open minded due simply to the fact that they are liberal.  Their argument is flawed however, in that they believe the substance of their opinions, in and of themselves, demonstrate open mindedness, when in reality it is how one arrives at those opinions that is the determinant of whether one is open minded.

The ironic part of all this is that liberal opinions generally arise from emotional rather than intellectual considerations and therefore have little to do at all with “mindedness” of any sort.  This fact also helps to explain why liberal concepts are easier to sell in sound bites and general mass media.

Emotional appeals demand only a passive response; intellectual appeals demand an active response.  Emotional appeals make you feel good, happy, sad, angry or any other of a host of “emotions”, requiring no effort or action on the part of the individual.  The response is natural and immediate.  On the other hand, intellectual appeals require effort on the part of the person the appeal is directed toward.  They require one to think, consider, evaluate and extrapolate data, ideas and concepts to come to a reasonable conclusion.  This demands an active response, which is more than many people are willing to do.

Henry Ford once said, “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably why so few people engage in it.”  Hence, the majority of people are unwilling to invest the time or effort needed to consider intellectual appeals and are instead content to react emotionally.  The emotions that conservative principles are most successful at generating are ones of anger – at welfare recipients, beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, over-reaching unions, bloated government etc.   If one does not like being angry – and most people don’t – they are likely to be repulsed by such appeals.  Yet if one makes the effort to consider the appeal intellectually – that welfare recipients will be better off and happier if they look to themselves rather than government for improvement in their lives; that we can never be a truly color-blind nation until we stop classifying and dividing ourselves by race, gender and ethnicity; that unions who strive to preserve jobs made unnecessary by technological improvements are holding wages down for everyone; that a government that cannot end the subsidy of mohair farmers (a remnant of our need for mohair during World War I) should not be allowed to decide which new technologies should be supported today – then they may come to very different conclusions about conservative appeals.

Democracy requires an active and knowledgeable electorate.  Unfortunately, we are negligent in our responsibility to learn and think.

It is wonderful to be open-hearted.  It is vital that we be open-minded as well.  We just must be willing to make the effort.