Tossing Bill Clinton under the bus

I've noticed several political articles admitting that the Left was wrong or at least not entirely right to defend Bill Clinton back in the '90s. Here's an example. I guess that with the Clintons' political futures dead, they don't mind tossing him under the bus. Ultimately I'm glad to see supposed political professionals admit what I knew 20+ years ago as a college student.

However, even with this decades-too-late mea culpa, they get some big things wrong, and there's a clear attempt to rewrite the story. First, Yglesias claims that in the Lewinsky scandal, "the facts were not in dispute." Nonsense. That's only in retrospect. At the time, the Clintons lied about every facet of the scandal until they were affirmatively disproven, and those lies had the full support and reinforcement of the political media at the time and the Democratic Party and its leadership. Everything was in dispute at the time, and if "the dress" hadn't been found, every one of these people would still be lying about it today.

Second, Yglesias still elevates politics over principle and ethics. Consider this quote.

If one admits that what Clinton did truly was awful, then why should the political impact even be a factor? For all his sanctimony, Yglesias is still admitting that politics is a "good reason" to compromise one's ethics, as he admits Democrats are doing on Bob Menendez. If that's the case, then how can he condemn what Roy Moore's dwindling gaggle of supporters is doing or what Trump's supporters did? By far the biggest reason to support Moore or to support Trump was to deny the opposition the victory. Is that a "good reason," or is it "putting party over country" as so many Democrats have whined?

Third, he claims the GOP was making the wrong case by focusing on Clinton's perjury allegation and instead should have focused on the abuse of Monica Lewinksy and treat her as a victim. Well, they focused on perjury for few reasons. First, the criminal aspect of Clinton's behavior is what formed the basis for impeachment. There was no precedent for impeaching a president only for sexual immorality. Second, had the GOP focused on the abuse element that Yglesias suggests they should, what reason would they have had to believe Democrats would have been receptive to it? None. Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky were at best ignored and often attacked by Democrats and the political media once their revelations were made public. They were never treated as victims and were usually slut-shamed and called liars with no proof. Finally, the sexist card would have been played. Republicans would have been accused of treating Lewinsky like a child who had no control or right to control her own sexual decisions. The point is that Yglesias's case is only workable with a principled Democratic Party. That doesn't exist now and sure as hell didn't exist in the 1990s. And let's remember the overriding justification for Clinton's election going all the way back to 1992 - personal character doesn't matter. Only "issues" matter.

Finally, Yglesias's entire premise (that the affair itself was wrong) is in conflict with a core principle of the progressive Left, which is sexual libertarianism coupled with sexual civil rights - the idea that sexual activity between consenting adults is private and morally transactional and that the only public role and duty is to ensure that the sexual actors are protected from the natural consequences of that activity (unplanned pregnancy, disease, etc.). That principle is much more consistent with how Democrats approached Clinton in the '90s. Lewinsky and Clinton were consenting adults having a sexual relationship. He got his rocks off, and she had fun and got a cushy government job. If you follow that, then Clinton isn't deserving of any sort of condemnation, and neither is Lewinsky. Both got something out of it, and it was none of anybody's business. Personally, I always thought that was perverse nonsense, but that was the Left's principle, and it's still their principle. What that means is that if the progressive Left is really going to reckon with Clinton's sleaziness, it also needs to reckon with that underlying principle. That's not going to happen, because it would undermine their policy positions on a myriad of issues.

So I'm glad that people like Yglesias are sorta waking up, but this sounds much more like a convenient political maneuver to bash Roy Moore (who is deserving of bashing) with rather than a sincere change of heart or reckoning.

 

You ought to email this critique to VOX

 

I'm quite sure it would wind up in the "circular file."

 

That's pretty laughable. Does he believe that the only way Democrats would have seen and acted on said inequity was if the GOP had pointed it out? That's ridiculous. And to your point, (unlike corporate America) there apparently isn't anything in the rules about banging interns.

I'd disagree here, only because there's another premise that trumps the idea of sexual libertarianism, and that's the idea that it's impossible to have that if there's an imbalance in power. They wouldn't be equals, and thus he has to be taking advantage of her (which in a rare instance, I actually would agree with them.) In this case, it's a man imposing his will on a subordinate, and even if she happens to enjoy it and/or even get some advancement, it's not something she would have agreed to do had he not been in a position of power.

 

I don't think the imbalance of power is the real principle. If it was, then they'd never be OK with superiors dating subordinates. Instead that's a card they play on an entirely selective basis.

 

Now even the NYT asks "What if Ken Starr was right?" I admit, I never thought I would see them questioning this

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/what-if-ken-starr-was-right.html?src=twr

 

Here is something from Vanity Fair
Looks like the Clinton Machine is striking back at their own -- DNC CHair Perez has purged Sanders and Ellison supporters



https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/tom-perez-dnc-shake-up

 

Bill Clinton may very well be doing his own tossing while under the bus....

 

Of course, that's written by the Times' most conservative (though still fairly Clinton-friendly) writer. Most of their liberal writers likely follow the "logic" of Michelle Goldberg, who dutifully packs her piece with partisan hackery, excuse-mongering, historical revision, and ********.

 

"Bill Clinton has no character problem" -- Stephanopoulos (now ABC news anchor)

 

What is the lesson of this story?

That liberals might finally some day be honest, some 20 years from now?

It did take them about 20 years to be honest about Reagan. Admitting they were wrong about Reagan meant admitting what a great person he was. It' the opposite with Clinton of course. Now they are finally admitting what a morally corrupt criminal horndog he was.

I am not sure how many of you saw this in realtime but their treatment of Reagan back in the day is similar to what they do with Trump now. But it is even worse now with 24/7 cable and social media. But the attacks were similar.

Why should we have to wait so long for "progressives" to be honest? Why cant they just be honest all the time?

 

I read that. 75% of it was attempting to justify their behavior at the time.
Which made it all somewhat pointless

 

George can stuff it right up his opolis.

 

Assuming that was not rhetorical, the answer is simple. If they are honest it will cost them massive amounts of political power.

 

Yes, I remember how incredibly hateful they were to Reagan. Hardly different than to Trump.

 

Hand of God moment?
The Clintons with their friends on 60 Minutes
In the middle of another lie, the set crashes down, almost gets them

 

Ahhh, what might have been, for want of only a few inches.

 

The media cover-up of the 1990s for Bill Clinton's sexual predation enabled and encouraged powerful sexual predators for an entire generation.
The media covered for Clinton in part to ensure sexual predators would fund Democrats, in order to be shielded too.
Until 2017
What changed?

 

I heard Rush talking about an article where the writer opined that the outpouring of reports of sexual misdeeds is due to the outrage over Trump winning and they just had to speak out against "the patriarchy" in general. I say hogwash, if DT's election has anything at all to do with it, it is much more likely that these women felt empowered by Trump winning such that they felt safe speaking up. They were reassured since the head rape-enabler was not elected to the most powerful position in all the world.

 

I think it is simpler than that. Crazy anti-Trumper who were aware of sexual predators in their careers could not fight Trump on one hand (based on the Billy Bush tape) and ignore the real predators in their midsts at the same time. The human brain does not work that way. Either they had to decide Trump is acceptable or out the predators. We know what choice they made. They would rather throw the Clintons under the bus than to accept Trump.

 

These people are incapable of simple, basic honesty

 

We’re going to need a bigger humidor

 

Colin Powell knew what the what back in 2014