Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned

[zoogs]

Matt Yglesias of Vox: 

 

I agree.

Edited November 15, 2017 by zoogs

[QMany]

Yglesias is a good Twitter follow, and this is a good piece. 

 

I was 6 when Bill was elected, so I don't appreciate or care for the Whataboutisms that have propagated by those trying to deflect/defend Moore, Trump, et al. 

 

But I think this piece could have done a better job distinguishing Clinton's consensual relationship with Lewinsky from non-consensual advances. I won't argue that Clinton's relationship wasn't an inappropriate abuse of power, but that is different from sexual assault. In that regard, I'm surprised Yglesias didn't hit more on the Juanita Broaddrick angle. 

[knapplc]

He's not wrong - Bill Clinton was (maybe still is) a creep and he should not have been president.

 

However, this article as an attempt to relitigate the past using today's morals and that's an inherently flawed premise.  Values change between eras and our responses to these kinds of scandals change as well.  The impeachment action taken against Clinton in the 1990s was, for the time, a strong step toward punishment of a sitting president. It was a shocking thing, and cast an appropriate amount of opprobrium on Clinton - again, for the time. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

10 minutes ago, QMany said:

But I think this piece could have done a better job distinguishing Clinton's consensual relationship with Lewinsky from non-consensual advances.

 

There is an extremely thin line between a consensual and non-consensual advance.

 

The problem is, he made and advance on a woman who he was a superior to.  The only reason why this wasn't a "non-consensual" advance was Monica's response.  At that split second, the entire aspect of the action could change.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, knapplc said:

However, this article as an attempt to relitigate the past using today's morals and that's an inherently flawed premise. 

 

I have no desire to relitigate anything with Bill.  However, I think it's a valid example of how situations are viewed very differently simply by the response that was received by the creepy actions of the man.

 

Obviously, a big difference between Bill and Moore is the age of the woman involved.  That can not be lost in all of this.  No matter what the response was to the women involved with Moore, the actions were wrong simply because of the age.

 

 

[zoogs]

"However, this article as an attempt to relitigate the past using today's morals and that's an inherently flawed premise.  Values change between eras and our responses to these kinds of scandals change as well"

 

I think that's the point -- if we were then where we are now, this should be the result. Rather than go back in time and say it's a travesty that Clinton didn't resign, he's making an argument about how we should look back at the era in retrospect. Our current interpretation ought to be that, for so many reasons, he should have been repudiated then and probably ought to be now.

Edited November 15, 2017 by zoogs

[knapplc]

^^^ And to add to what BRB is saying, the degree of disparity between the two people very much comes into play in the analysis.  A Team Lead hitting on a Line Worker is gross, but likely he can't hire/fire her, and probably doesn't even perform her personnel evaluations.

 

A Vice President or CFO is going to have so much more authority over a Secretary or even middle management that the implication of that advance is in itself an inference of consequence if the advance is rebuffed.  Absolutely Clinton's advance toward Lewinsky qualifies as the latter. 

 

Although, I don't know if I remember that story well enough to know if she initiated it or he did.  Regardless of who initiated it, once that barrier was crossed he was 100% at fault.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, zoogs said:

"However, this article as an attempt to relitigate the past using today's morals and that's an inherently flawed premise.  Values change between eras and our responses to these kinds of scandals change as well"

 

I think that's the point -- if we were then where we are now, this should be the result. Rather than go back in time and say it's a travesty that Clinton did this, he's making an argument about how we should look back at the era in retrospect. 

 

It seems like the point is whataboutism. Yeah, Roy Moore is a creep and yeah he shouldn't be in the Senate, but what about Bill Clinton?

 

I mean... when's the last time anyone thought about Clinton/Lewinsky?  If Hillary hadn't ran in the last election, it would have left the collective conscience more than a decade ago. Why bring it up now?

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I have no desire to relitigate anything with Bill.  However, I think it's a valid example of how situations are viewed very differently simply by the response that was received by the creepy actions of the man.

 

Obviously, a big difference between Bill and Moore is the age of the woman involved.  That can not be lost in all of this.  No matter what the response was to the women involved with Moore, the actions were wrong simply because of the age.

 

 

 

True about the age thing. Lewinsky was an adult, and unless I'm misremembering, she consented. Moore's victims were more obviously victims - but because of the disparity in authority, Lewinsky was a victim, too.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

True about the age thing. Lewinsky was an adult, and unless I'm misremembering, she consented. Moore's victims were more obviously victims - but because of the disparity in authority, Lewinsky was a victim, too.

 

I completely agree.  

 

What everyone needs to learn from the Clinton situation is exactly what you said.  When you have this big of disparity in authority, even consensual relationships can produce a victim.  But also, to my point, let's say Clinton was another intern and they were on the same level of authority.  Bill hitting on Lewinsky is a HUGE risk for any man because at that moment he makes his intentions known, it can go anywhere from her accepting his advances and them falling in love and living happily ever after all the way to her filing a complaint against him for an unwanted advance and he loses his job.

 

If I were single, I can't imagine, even with all the best intentions, trying to date a woman I work with.  Pretty high risk.

[knapplc]

Yep. It's never a good idea to date a coworker.  Even if it works out in the initial stages, once the relationship ends it's going to get weird, and there's no separation. 

 

If you find your soulmate at work, fantastic. But one of you needs to get a new job. 

[TGHusker]

Another thing that I think about in this whole issue is the change in our culture towards the victims.  Back 'in the day' there was a heavy stigma placed on the victim - 'she brought it on herself' or "she dressed inappropriately" (I remember part of the Lewinsky  issue was her underwear showing in a revealing way - that came up in one of the testimonies) or 'she made the first move' - the burden of proof was on the victim.     Regardless of the reason why is the "victim's fault" -  the power still belongs to the senior person (the Boss or in Moore's case - age) and they become liable once they don't stop the train on the tracks.  Ie, "Surely Uncle Billy Joe Bob didn't do that to his little granddaughter. He is a pillar in the community. She must have just mis-interpretted the whole situation." (Kinds of sounds like the post Knapp made on the Moore thread about GHWB)

 

Today, however, victims are typically believed first.  There isn't the sigma (not saying there isn't any) that there use to be. In fact, as I noted on the other tread, we risk going to the other degree of not allowing the accused their fair trial in court and also in the court of public opinion.  Sometimes there are false accusations.  We have an OKC area policeman who, it is now becoming apparent to many, was railroaded by trumped up charges.  However, that is the exception.  For too long victim's voices were silenced by intimidation, fear, power, reprisals.  It is good that more open access to media has allowed the voice of victims to tell their story. 

Of course politics still gets in the way - where were the Republicans when the Trump tape came out.  Yes, many thought it was vulgar and spoke out, but what real action was taken?  Crickets in that regard.

Edited November 15, 2017 by TGHusker

[zoogs]

Rather than Whataboutism, I think there's just a desire for consistency here; for expressing and maintaining our own standards and holding ourselves to them. There's a good reason to bring up Bill now, because after having left office he still enjoys a relatively decent reputation and admiration for his work during and after his presidency. He's an eloquent speaker and still a prominent voice. It wouldn't do to simply move on and pretend it never happened. To bury the era there must be a reason.

[Dbqgolfer]

If I recall correctly, Lewinksy allegedly initiated the "relationship" by pulling down the top of her pants to show off her thong and at the time she wasn't really seen as the victim.  The reason Clinton was impeached was not the action with Lewinsky but because he lied about it under oath while testifying about a sexual harassment suit filed by Paula Jones for something that occurred while Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Also, if I recall correctly, during that time, Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Wiley made sexual assault allegations against Clinton.  All of this came to light during a Special Prosecutor investigation of the Clinton's actions during a land deal in Arkansas.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Dbqgolfer

[knapplc]

There were several women who accused Clinton of being a creepy dbag, I think beyond even the ones you mentioned, DBQ.  He just seemed smarmy and like the kind of guy who would pull stuff like that.  Always made me wonder why Hillary stayed with him when it was pretty clear he was philandering his way through Little Rock, and later Washington. 

 

Same reason Roy Moore's wife is defending him today, maybe. Just weird.