December
27, 2000
Clinton's Holiday Fantasy
By Tom Bevan
For the record, I have already made it my New Year's resolution
to not write any articles critical of Clinton (Bill, that is)
in 2001. But with four days left in the current year and our soon-to-be-former
President engaged in a relentless campaign to rewrite the history
of his administration, I thought it necessary to offer one final
critique.
There are two disturbing tendencies about Mr. Clinton's eleventh
hour media blitz. The first is that he has taken on such a paranoid,
self-deluded view of his role in impeachment and the scandals
of Whitewater, et al. that he has effectively divorced himself
from reality.
President Clinton has convinced himself, with a power of rationalization
eclipsed only by O.J. Simpson, that his impeachment was the result
of a personal mistake politicized by his opponents rather than
an abuse of power and perjury. As Clinton explained to his good
friend Jann Wenner in Rolling Stone magazine recently, "they
(Republicans) thought they had a free shot to put a hit on me,
and so they did. They thought they could put a black mark on me
in history, and that was really important to them."
Clinton's refusal to acknowledge even the most indisputable of
facts - lying under oath is a good example - is driven by an incredibly
extreme egocentrism. Facts are merely a backdrop to the story
of his persecution by the vast right wing conspiracy. In his mind
he truly believes that Republicans were so angry over his election
in 1992 that they "went to war the first day of my Presidency."
The other disturbing tendency of Clinton's public relations tour
is for "reputable" media organizations to aid and abet
the president's fantasy without the slightest application of logic
or scrutiny. How else to explain the inability of any of the five
New York Times reporters conducting a recent interview with the
President to confront him after he remarked: "But that whole
episode (impeachment) was fundamentally a political move. It was
not rooted in any established principles of Constitution, or law,
or precedent." Would these reporters so easily acquiesce
to others misrepresenting history - like a scholar denying the
existence of the Holocaust, perhaps?
Shouldn't Dan Rather, instead of fawning and giggling his way
through an interview with the President as he did last week, question
Mr. Clinton about the obvious hypocrisy in his criticism of House
Majority Whip Tom DeLay when he said: "The - my problem with
- with him is, I just - his whole deal about how you should treat
your opponents if very different from mine. I just think he's
got a total scorch and burn policy, you know. Take 'em out, whatever
the cost, whatever you have to do." This from a man who hired
private detectives and spin doctors to destroy the credibility
of those who spoke out against him.
What makes all of this equally dangerous and disgusting is that
for those not paying close attention Mr. Clinton's revisions of
history seem convincing. Especially when they are disseminated
by CBS and the New York Times. But until the media decides to
question what they hear instead of just printing it (don't hold
your breath), the public must continue struggling to determine
reality from fantasy.
Tom Bevan writes for RealClearPolitics
