We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions

 

A Private Matter
In Dissent, Number One Hundred and Eleven
by Brian S. Wise
31 May 2003The Clinton Wars, by Sid Blumenthal

Sid Blumenthal, his new book, and the Clinton Legacy Reclamation Project.

You will be happy to know that the Clinton Legacy Reclamation Project is well underway.  Sid Blumenthal has written (and Farrar, Straus and Giroux has published) a book about the previous administration, taking no great pains to explain its scandals.  It is entitled The Clinton Wars.  The upshot is that there were only such things as Clinton wars because of Right wing overreaction, not because they were worth serious consideration.  (Of course.)  When publishers and authors want to sell books, they schedule book tours; Blumenthal ended up on The Big Story three days ago to be interviewed by guest host Jon Scott.  In that one segment, Blumenthal asserted 1) that Bill Clinton had come in third in a recent poll naming the greatest presidents ever, and 2) the entire Weinergate mess was entirely a private matter.
           
The poll Blumenthal sites, unbelievably, exists.  It was taken by Gallup on April fifth and sixth, plus or minus three percent.  Those answering the call were asked to name the greatest American president.  Fifteen percent picked Abraham Lincoln, 13 percent named John Kennedy, 11 percent named Bill Clinton and 11 percent named George W. Bush.  It reads like a particularly painful version of “one of these things is not like the others,” but this is what happens when you ask regular people a question that takes some historical perspective to answer cogently.  (Chris Matthews rather hilariously suggested Tuesday that anyone answering such a poll question should first be forced to name 20 presidents.)
           
John Kennedy is an overrated president and is on the list only because he was adored (and because he was assassinated).  But at least economic and Cuban missile arguments can be made for Kennedy; none, absolutely none, can be made for either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush even sniffing the outside edge of any “greatest president” list.  Any open question of great presidents that does not include at least George Washington, John Adams, either of the Roosevelts or Thomas Jefferson (first term) is not a serious consideration of the topic, just a modern popularity contest where just enough Clinton and Bush lovers got the call to make a difference.  The notion that either of them belong when so many legitimate candidates are ignored represents an intellectual miscarriage.
           
Which leaves us with Weinergate, and the world’s heaviest sigh.  I swore I was never going to reference the Clinton sex scandals again unless it was while making jokes; you can blame Blumenthal for causing the irritation that lead to the breaking of this promise.  Surely he, Blumenthal, understands the difference between what happens in one’s bedroom (or in his office, or in the secluded hallway just off his office) and what happens once he takes an oath to tell the truth in federal grand jury testimony?  As the time has gone by it has become harder and harder to remember, but nowhere in the four articles of impeachment were either That Fat Pig Monica Lewinsky or oral sex mentioned.  Which means what?  That if Clinton had told the truth instead of being himself (and lying under oath about three dozen times), perhaps large parts of what ended up being a significant scandal would never have happened, and he would just have ended up embarrassed.  Again.
           
Nearing the end of the Clinton administration, I was publicly asked rather I had it inside of me to write a book about the 42d president.  I said, No, for two reasons.  The first was that everyone was going to write that book (and everyone has); the second was that, in general terms, commentators should not dedicate great amounts of time and energy writing about or discussing someone more mentally ill than they are themselves.  (This is the same reason I have never written at length about Richard Nixon.)  The remark drew some fire, but it could not be retracted in good conscience.  The Left has profound problems, one of them being that it cannot admit, or knows but refuses to accept, that there is something seriously the matter with Bill Clinton, and that something needs to be addressed by someone not named Kenneth Starr.  Preferably someone with a long couch Clinton can lie on while discussing his life.
           
Leave it to the trusty old New York Times to provide the voice of reason (what?!):  “Blumenthal’s book may do more to stir old controversies than settle them.  Participants in the Clinton wars would do well to understand that re-fighting 90s battles will be of less benefit to the country than detached analysis explaining how we can avoid future unproductive quarrels over the personal weaknesses of our presidents.”  Yes, yes, of course.  Forget that I even brought it up.

Email Brian S. Wise


Join Brian's Mailing List


Send this Article to a Friend