Slick Willie Or Tricky Dick -- What's The Difference?
By Emil Franzi
I VOTED FOR Richard Nixon for president three times. In
another life, as president of the California Young Republicans,
I helped beat the conservative troops in line after the Taiwan
sell-out and the imposition of wage price-controls. I even contributed
to the Spiro T. Agnew Defense Fund. I was a GOP hack.
As the late Jesse Unruh, long-time Democratic speaker of the
California Assembly, once said, " I don't learn quick, but
I learn good." By 1974 I'd had it with the moral bankruptcy
exhibited by Nixon and the whole White House gang (with the possible
exception of G. Gordon Liddy.) There are Republicans in town to
this day who won't forgive me for calling for Nixon's resignation
and supporting his impeachment.
Today, America is, unfortunately, in the same position with President
Bill Clinton as it was 25 years ago with Tricky Dick.
There are some differences: I can't find anybody in Clinton's
camp with as much guts as Liddy. And no one had Nixon under oath
in a six-hour deposition. Nixon's real criminal acts came under
the heading "obstruction of justice." Alleged perjury
is an additional problem unique to Clinton.
It's amazing to hear from Clinton types exactly what I heard
25 years ago from my fellow Republicans about Nixon: So what,
everybody else did it too. They're just out to get him. The press
made most of it up. Innocent until proven guilty. And the
most debatable of all: But he's done a good job.
That was crap then and it's crap now, particularly coming from
those who yelled for Nixon's scalp. Everybody doesn't do it! Teddy
Roosevelt never screwed around on Edith; Harry Truman never screwed
around on Bess. Maybe it isn't just coincidence that we score
them as two of our greatest presidents in this century. Jack Kennedy
couldn't keep it in his pants either, but he never bumped a civil
servant from a promotion to provide a job for one of his bimbos,
like Clinton did in Arkansas. Gee, where was AFSCME on that one?
There's always a "They" trying to shitcan every president.
"They" are only successful when they're given ammunition
and genuine charges. There were many "Theys" trying
to bag Clarence Thomas, too. Many, including 48 United States
senators, found the testimony of one woman sufficient evidence
to keep Thomas from the U.S. Supreme Court. How about multiple
allegations of several women that, when summarized, plainly outline
the behavior of a sexual predator whose actions are not only self-destructive,
but border on the sociopathic? If you believe Thomas is unfit
to serve on the highest court, how can you believe Clinton is
fit to serve in the highest office?
The role of the media is different these days. They were much
tougher on Nixon, whom they generally hated. Clinton has been
allowed to skate partly due to the inherent liberal bias of most
reporters, but mainly due to the degeneration of the media over
the past 25 years. If this president leaves office, the Washington
Post will have no Woodwards or Bernsteins to claim it.
And nobody ever proved Nixon guilty of anything in a court of
law, although he did have that handy pardon just in case. But
the presidency has higher standards than "beyond a reasonable
doubt."
As to how well either Nixon or Clinton performed--politically
speaking, of course--I would urge Democratic activists to cast
off their party hack mentality and look closely at Slick Willie's
record:
He dumped on core Democratic issues, from NAFTA and GATT to welfare
reform and taxation, in the same way Nixon screwed over core conservative
GOP issues. Both have been touted as great "moderates"
when both were basically duplicitous sell-outs. We admire guys
like Teddy and Harry today for more than just keeping it in their
pants and not stealing--we admire them for their rock-hard adherence
to fundamental principles.
President Clinton ought to resign, or be impeached, for the same
reasons we shitcanned Nixon: Both disgraced the office, and the
trauma of removal is ultimately less damaging to the country than
allowing a proven jerk to continue to debase it.
AND ANOTHER THING... It's been a standing joke for many
years in political circles that if the folks running Tucson's
two daily fish-wrappers were in charge of the Washington press
back in '73-'74, not only would Nixon have finished his second
term, but his successor would've been Spiro Agnew.
Having read the columns of two of those papers' leading thinkers
over the last few days, it's no longer funny.
The Arizona Daily Star's Tom Beal is a decent man. But
he clearly has low standards for public officials, and those standards
reflect the attitude shown by those who set standards for political
reporting in Tucson.
In a column headlined "We expect and demand deceit,"
Beal explains that the electorate wants to be hoodwinked, that
voters expect snow jobs from politicians, and that they generally
don't take kindly to pols who tell us the truth.
Beal left something out of the discourse: The role of the media--people
like him and us--in exposing those lying politicians. That's a
role he and too many others seem to have abdicated.
In classifying deceit as business as usual, Beal condones it.
In failing to condemn it, he endorses it. In ignoring it when
it occurs, he abandons his responsibility as a reporter and as
a political columnist.
It apparently does not greatly disturb him when a school board
blatantly lies and stonewalls regarding a sleazy land deal, as
Amphitheater has done. Or when the Marana Town Council promises
homeowners they will hold back an annexation, only to turn around
and surreptiously implement it. Or when the Mayor of Tucson blatantly
lies to the voters to pass a bond election.
We know these--and similar actions by other public officials--don't
bother Beal very much, or else he'd write about them, or maybe
even condemn them. Now he's told us why he doesn't. It's all no
big deal; it's what we wanted all along.
Wrong, Tom. We don't want it any more than we wanted the lying
of Fife Symington and Ed Moore--two guys who finally went far
enough even for you. How far is enough?
If Beal--the Star's most prominent, able, and well-read
columnist and editorial writer--would show a little indignation
about all this deceit he finds normal, maybe it would help diminish
it. Politicians who are brutally frank--Barry Goldwater and Harry
Truman come to mind--are ultimately popular. The truth
should be nurtured and liars condemned. The role of the media,
particularly those lucky enough to be vested with the freedom
of columnists, is to expose lying SOBs whenever and wherever
they appear. And the indignation should begin with the first lie,
not the last one.
Politicians, here and elsewhere, get away with deceit simply
because too many media types let them. Their lies are not acceptable
to most people when they find out about them. But citizens can't
get pissed off when the lies go unreported, undiscussed, unmentioned
and are considered unimportant. Beal's lack of concern for that
element of political reporting contributes to democracy's undoing.
But Beal's lack of concern is trumped by the Citizen's
Joe Garcia, whose rambling columns vanished from the Citizen
a few months back. On Monday he returned and finally expressed
an opinion on an issue, in a rambling discourse bemoaning the
President's lack of a private life. Garcia said he really didn't
care about adultery or the President's sex life.
This isn't about private actions or adultery. If a police chief
or a school principal, or any other lesser civil servant in a
management position, hit on his underlings on the job and at the
workplace, we would can his ass, because those actions are obviously
unacceptable in a public servant. This does involve public
policy; it is not a private matter--something even the
slower learners should have picked up in the Clarence Thomas hearings.
And as any EEO lawyer will explain, consensual response to the
boss' passes are not a mitigating factor in harassment
cases.
Presidents and other officials lose most of their privacy rights
in proportion to the power they acquire. As the line in The
Godfather went, "This is the business they have chosen."
If any high-ranking official is a lush or a doper or a compulsive
gambler or has any other destructive addiction, it is our
business. How about a congressman who's in hock to a mob bookie,
a judge who snorts cocaine or a senator who's in the bag every
day by noon? Does the name Bob Packwood ring a bell? Was his sex
life none of our business?
In presenting their low standards to us, both Beal and Garcia
ignore a simple requirement of public service. As George Will
so ably points out, most contracts and civil service codes contain
a moral turpitude clause. Those who broach it, after the appropriate
due process, are on the street.
Character does matter. It's also the law.
|