Civil Liberties Clinton Impeachment

The major issue in President Clinton's impeachment trial, in early 1999, was his sexual conduct.   Elsewhere I comment on his impeachable offenses.   But I can't help but comment on the hypocrisy of many of his supporters.   I refer to those supporters who said the impeachment was just "about sex".

For a long time in the U.S., there were no laws or regulations prohibiting a boss from dating an employee he (or she) managed.   Amazingly, even when I was in graduate school in the 1970's, there were no restrictions on graduate students dating the students in their classes!   (I didn't date any of my students; I thought it improper and a potential abuse of power.)   Eventually, the U.S. passed a number of laws, prohibiting sexual harassment, intended to remedy this.

The laws were heavily supported by "liberals" and feminists – and even by people who were neither, such as myself.   So, when President Clinton was accused of sexual harassment (and he eventually admitted that he broke these laws), did the liberals and feminists condemn him?   Did they advocate his impeachment?

It's not too hard to find evidence that I don't care for "liberals" (as the term is commonly used today).   This is one of the reasons.   Often, "liberal" seems to mean "hypocrite."

Clinton supporters also damaged their credibility in their opposition to the confirmation of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.   Thomas was accused of making offensive statements to Anita Hill, possibly including sexual innuendo.   No one suggested that Thomas had had sex with Hill.   Can you imagine the result had there been credible evidence that Thomas had done so?   He would not have been confirmed, he would have been disgraced, and virtually every feminist in the U.S. would have rejoiced.   (Or maybe not — they might object that disgrace was not enough; they might demand he serve jail time.)

So, when Clinton was impeached, did those who pushed so hard for Thomas's non-confirmation on grounds of sexual misconduct push for Clinton's conviction?   No, of course not.   Even though Clinton had had sex (and eventually admitted it) with one of his employees (and a junior employee at that) — conduct that would have resulted in the firing of any college professor or corporate executive — his supporters dutifully defended him.   Most of the feminists who condemned Thomas for his alleged misconduct (accusations not proven, and without any credible evidence) were silent at the abundant evidence of Clinton's misconduct.

The reason can only be hypocrisy — the same hypocrisy that led them to ignore many of Clinton's impeachable offenses.   Offenses that, had a Republican committed, they would joyfully condemn.   Of course, those who pushed the Anita Hill issue during the Thomas hearings were only interested in stopping his confirmation by any means necessary.   When their guy — Clinton — was under attack, they dropped any "sexual misconduct" issue, since it was only about politics anyway.

I, for one, didn't think Thomas should have been confirmed.   While most of the other Supreme Court Justices have been praised as having "fine legal minds", no one said that about Thomas.   And there was concern that Thomas might inject his conservative political views into the court — ruling, not on the basis of the Constitution, but his own political prejudices.   (These concerns do seem to have been borne out.)   But I didn't want to see the confirmation process subverted by the opponents of Thomas, who apparently thought that the ends justify the means.   Too bad the Senate wasn't interested in the real confirmation issues.

Those who opposed Thomas because of the Anita Hill allegations, but supported Clinton, need to remember that the U.S. is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.   The U.S. system is supposed to work (and has worked), regardless of who is in office, because of the principles of the Constitution and the laws which support it.   Those principles are more important than any person.   When someone — whether he's your candidate or not — deviates from those principles, he should be punished.   Many people, who fought hard for many years to get sexual misconduct recognized as such, ignored such misconduct when a favorite of theirs committed it.   They thereby undid much (most?) of what they had accomplished, undermined their credibility, and — worst of all — undermined the credibility of the rule of law.

For many years now, there's been a cynical undercurrent in the U.S. — a feeling that the law is worthless because "sleazy attorneys" can twist it any way they wish.   (This is a feeling that attorneys, most of all, should do eveything they can to counteract.)   Maybe it's not a coincidence that Bill Clinton, who did more than anyone in a quarter century to undermine civil liberties and the rule of law, was an attorney.

Top Civil Liberties Clinton Impeachment
Page Modified 22 July 2003