Update from the Sunland
No.876
15.10.18 – 21.10.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
CBS reporter Tony Dokoupil interviewed former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on the CBS News Sunday Morning program [14.Oct.2018]. It was a wide ranging, unbounded (to my knowledge) interview, but I was gobsmacked at a few of her specific responses, specifically, when the question turned to her husband’s dalliances in the light of the contemporary “#MeToo” movement.
TD: “There are people who look at incidents of the 90’s, and they say a president of the United States cannot have a consensual relationship with an intern. The power imbalance is too great.”
HRC: “She was an adult. Let me ask you this, where is the investigation of the current incumbent, against whom numerous allegations have been made, in which he dismisses, denies, and ridicules. So, there was an investigation, and I believe, it came out in the right place.”
. . .
TD: “In retrospect, do you think Bill should've resigned in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal?”
HRC: “Absolutely not.”
TD: “It wasn't an abuse of power?”
HRC: “No.”
TD: “You do not believe he should have resigned?”
HRC: “No."
TD: “How do you contend with members of your own party now saying he should have?”
HRC: “That’s their right . . . to their opinion. They were not in the middle of it.”
This is one of many reasons (not the dominant reason) I did not and could not vote for Clinton. I appreciate her honesty and forthrightness in answering, but she is just another citizen and she is not entitled to a different standard. Numerous Press sources noted “crickets” from major women’s groups on Clinton’s tone-deaf responses. She had a unique opportunity to make a clear, concise statement, but she could not bring herself to do so.
Abuse of power is predominantly an ethical issue, more so than a legal one. Bill Clinton did not get crosswise with the law until he lied to federal investigators and tried to cover-up his mistakes. I wrote two essays 20 years ago that remain applicable and valid, from my perspective.
“Abuse of Power”
20.September.1998
“Thoughts Regarding the Behavior of Bill Clinton”
20.September.1998
The intern’s age and adult status have absolutely nothing to do with abuse of power. The reality is an intern cannot give informed consent in a relationship with anyone in a position of power, and there could not be greater disparity between the President of United States and a White House intern. Hillary indirectly played to the double standard of paternalism, and she failed the test . . . again. Making matters far worse, she resorted to Trumpian deflection to defend her position. The BIC’s multitudinous transgressions have absolutely nothing to do with her husband’s many transgressions. Yet, it was the silence of the “#MeToo” movement that shocked me. If the BIC had responded the way Clinton did, I would have condemned his response. I am compelled to comparably condemn Clinton’s terribly short response, and I will also condemn the feminist movement for not condemning Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) for their failure to condemn the transgressors of any party, persuasion or affiliation. Women failed, and I am disappointed in that failure. Gosh darn it, paternalism must die with all the other relics of bygone eras.
In contrast to my opinion above, I offer another public opinion.
“Hillary Clinton Is Right—Her Husband’s Affair Was No ‘Abuse’ – Monica Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and the harassment-industrial complex is out of control.”
by Abigail Shrier
Wall Street Journal
Published: Oct. 19, 2018; 6:45 p.m. ET
Shrier defines abuse of power occurring “when a person exploits the function or resources of his position to procure something to which the job does not entitle him.” There are several elements in her definition that bother me, not least of which is her use of the words ‘procure’ and ‘entitle.’ She makes is sound quite transactional. I prefer a broader, more balanced definition; abuse of power occurs when anyone uses a position of power or influence to coerce, pressure, intimidate or force another person within their sphere of influence to do anything of they are not comfortable with doing. The insidiousness of abuse of power exists in the perceptions of the person in the inferior position, which is precisely why sexual favors in abuse of power situation are so difficult to reconcile, and thus must be universally prohibited, condemned and otherwise avoided. Shrier has a number of valid points. However, she fails to recognize or acknowledge the one central reality in all this mess. We cannot know what was said or what happened in the White House between Clinton and Lewinsky. It may well be as Shrier hypothesizes; we cannot and never will know, and that is precisely the point that Shrier ignores. In such circumstances, we have no choice but to err on the side of caution. I absolutely agree that any person in an inferior position, e.g., POTUS v. intern, cannot give informed consent. The same would be true for employer-employee, teacher-student, priest-parishioner, et cetera. With respect, I think Ms. Shrier is wrong! . . . because she misses the essential point!
Comments and contributions from Update no.875:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will not let pass your claim that Kavanaugh was confirmed by ‘the representatives We, the People, elected to the Senate.’ Nope. So long as people from Nebraska and Alaska have more powerful votes than people from New York, California, and Florida, I’m not letting you get away with that one. I and a majority of voters will not take the blame for Grassley and his crew.
“That more people don’t vote is a result of neither party offering worthwhile platforms or candidates. Their sponsors would rather they indulge in negative campaigning so that they don’t have to offer worthwhile commitments. (We had this discussion last week.) My conscience will not let me stay home, but I certainly understand why others do. The Green Party in the region of Bavaria, Germany, shows us a fresh example of victory through turnout. They have made important gains by offering a positive and liberal message in a region previously controlled by conservative politicians including Angela Merkel.
“I will leave the decisions up to the many Constitutional lawyers in Congress, but I suspect we already have evidence to bring those impeachments. (The standard of proof is ‘whatever Senators vote for.’) Republicans control Congress right now, so we’re not seeing action there, but evidence abounds. The plea for civility comes loudest from corrupt centrists who do not want to fight for American ideals.
“In regard to our lengthy discussion on majority rule from last week, I never said states have no functions. Most of the world allows provinces to address local conditions to whatever level serves the national interests. I’ll just repeat the topic of the discussion: the Electoral College and the structure of Congress give some states’ voters more power than others’ for no good reason.
“Your understanding of the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept backfires. What do you think is happening now? Neither Trump nor W. Bush was elected by a simple majority, nor do the national vote totals determine which party controls either branch of Congress. We live in an oligarchy, not a representative republic. That potential is as embedded in our national design as it was in Ancient Greece.”
My response to the Blog:
Your choice entirely.
You are a far better man than me. I do not understand and I am not so forgiving. Our duty, responsibility and obligation as citizens of this Grand Republic is to vote. I certainly laud your perspective in that a positive, committed message is inspiring and encouraging. However, we must see beyond the negatives to find the positives, especially when those positives are difficult to find.
Well, I guess that is what I am . . . a “corrupt centrist.” I truly believe civility within a vigorous public debate is essential; it is another way of saying we must respect each other as we disagree and seek mutually acceptable solutions to the problems before us. Yep, I will accept that label, although I do not agree with it. Despite all our flaws, mistakes, failures and missteps, I believe in this Grand Republic and the principles that have bound us together for generations . . . for nearly 400 years. I also believe we will be a stronger nation for the trauma we must currently endure.
I do not disagree with you. Yes, there is imbalance in our electoral and governance systems . . . by design. I see the wisdom in that design. It has served us well for 230 of those 400 years. The tribalism that has consumed us for the last few decades has accentuated the peculiarities of those principles. The minority that won the 2016 election is not even close to a majority in headcount, and yet, because almost a majority of citizens failed to vote that minority controls the reins of power. This is not the minority’s fault; this is the majority’s fault—the majority that allowed that activist minority to use the system we have. As long as the majority of citizens fail to perform their duty several times a year or at least biannually, then we will always get what we’ve always got.
We shall respectfully disagree. We do NOT live in an oligarchy. Certainly, Citizens United has brought us a few steps closer to that oligarchy, but the money men are not the puppet masters. They have no power, if we look beyond the money.
. . . Round two:
“You seem unable to realize that ‘mutually agreeable solutions’ are not available today. (Civility is not a strong quality of U.S. political campaign history.) Those who have taken power have no interest in compromise, and the Democrats have moved so far to the right in their quest for those mutually agreeable solutions that they no longer stand for anything. They will never find mutual agreement under these circumstances
“That doesn't bother the Democrats' large donors. Some of the Republicans' donors remain conservatives rather than Trumpists, and their candidates are caught between the uncompromising factions. Many grassroots Democrats and former Democrats are equally unhappy with their oligarchic party. Agreeability is not a positive quality in this situation. For this Constitutional disaster, you (and the Democratic National Committee) blame those who recognize the unworthiness of the candidates and the failures of the system. Nope, I’m not seeing it.
“I have never seen the wisdom in the imbalances in our electoral structure, and I still do not. Minority power is a major factor in this mess as it was in the struggle over slavery and ‘states rights.’”
. . . my response to round two:
Solutions are always possible. We choose not to seek those solutions. There have been extreme groups in this Grand Republic since its founding. The middle is far bigger, stronger, and more influential than either extreme; the problem of the middle is mobilization against the forces of intransigence.
You are quite correct. Although I will say, President Obama was the closest we’ve approached to proper civility in politics we’ve made in contemporary times.
I am sorry you seem to have such a pessimistic view of the political arena. There is always hope.
Any minority, no matter how electorally active they are, can be overcome within our current system. It is our choice.
. . . Round three:
“To point out the obvious, mutually agreeable solutions are only possible when all sides are willing to be agreeable. That situation does not obtain at present.
“The political middle is seriously difficult to find. The Republican Party has moved far to the right ever since Reagan's first election, and the mainstream of the Democrats moved right along with it, leaving behind a left that is growing. The centrist/corporate Democrats are the only ‘middle’ left, and the millenials are leaving them behind in an attempt to save themselves. I'm not as pessimistic as all that despite the past 35+ years of history. The millenials have a fighting chance.”
. . . my response to round three:
You are, of course, quite correct. It takes two to tango. Again, some of us elect those representatives for their intransigence. A significant segment of our population celebrates the Senate Majority Leader’s defiance of the Constitution. I have come to a selection criterion of solutions by negotiations in words and deeds. Intransigence in any candidate for any position is now disqualifying for me.
Yes, the Tea Party folks have had a profound effect on the Republican Party. Even worse, the current fellow unabashedly delivers on those touchstones despite his immorality. I am and have been in that political middle you refer to, and I am quite easy to find. The middle tends to be less vociferous, and more absorptive and discriminating. The centrist/corporate Democrats you refer to are not the middle; they are part of the middle, but they are not the middle. There are moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. The millennials are the next generation; it will soon be there task to remedy.
. . . Round four:
“I was never in the middle, and it's unlikely that I'll ever understand them. Nowadays, I quote Barry Goldwater sometimes: ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.’
“We make progress backward too fast for any ‘incremental’ actions to avoid losing more ground in our elections. Also, the climate began changing some time ago, and we are making no effort to adapt, much less to try to slow the change.”
. . . my response to round four:
Therein lays some of our differences; I have always been in the middle, and there I shall remain for the rest of my days.
I remember the broadcast of Goldwater’s statement. I met Barry once—very generous man; my first political candidate.
I can accept that.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I'm with Hillary (when she's right, she's right) on the Monica issue. We cannot have utter mathematical proof of what happened, but we almost never do of anything. From what I found from multiple sound sources at the time, she went to a great deal of effort to get into his presence. Most interns only see the President at group welcoming and departure ceremonies, but she found ways to spend personal time with him and private time at that. Were she the least bit uncomfortable with him, she could have avoided him. Their affair was consensual and then some on her part. Abuse of power isn't unusual for Bill Clinton, but do we count this specific relationship as abuse when the “victim” went to great effort to make it happen? I think we're back to our “moral projectionist” discussion. His use of Paula Jones and some of his other sexual episodes were different, but the one with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power that I can see.
The Wall Street Journal writer used “procure” and “entitle” for legal and grammatical correctness, very appropriate to formal definitions. As a very literal language-oriented person, I find that the better definition.
What about Trump's announcement that we're leaving a nuclear arms treaty? That's far more important.
Good morning to you, Calvin,
Re: Monica. We shall respectfully disagree. To me, the difference in power is so great that informed consent is not possible . . . like teacher-student, priest-parishioner, doctor-patient, lawyer-client, et cetera, IMHO.
Re: definitions. Again, we shall respectfully disagree. Abuse of power is not some transactional event.
Re: the BIC’s withdrawal from nuclear arms treaty(ies). Yes, a worthy topic; however, like so many crises induced by the BIC, he offers us only a paucity of any substance to know what he’s talking about. There are half dozen nuclear arms treaties between the U.S. and Russia (Soviet Union) since 1969. It is unclear exactly which treaty he is unilaterally negating or whether it is all of them. Like the petulant, juvenile, schoolyard bully, when he does like a call or situation, he takes the ball and bat, and storms off the field. President Kennedy called out Soviet transgressions and presented photography evidence to We, the People, and the World to expose Soviet conduct. The BIC has done nothing of the sort, not even remotely close. We cannot trust the BIC to tell us the truth about anything, so we cannot believe a word he says; this instance is no different . . . caravan hordes attacking our border, nuclear weapons, all the same to him.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment