THE CLINTON CRISIS--- TWO SIDES

One is struck as the controversy rages, that Americans fall one way or another on the balance scale. This particular controversy reveals an interesting difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals are saying that what goes on behind closed doors or in bedrooms or what can be called the private life or what's personal, is nobody's business. They seem to accept the fact that many great, and not so great presidents, have had secret affairs, and that they had nothing to do with governance. It is only now, in what is called a 'media frenzy,' that journalists are looking into the private life of a besieged president, looking for sensational copy. More and more there are leaks feeding this frenzy, and a lowering of journalistic standards in reporting rumors or hearsay that is not corroborated in at least two places.

The liberals are also decrying the long and expensive independent counsel's investigation and prosecution, as if this were partisan politics and not the pursuit of justice. Hillary Clinton even called it a 'right-wing conspiracy'. So the war is on.

The conservatives tend more to morals, character and religion. If Bill Clinton did the things that he was alleged to have done, he would be a womanizer, an adulterer, a sinner, a liar, a breaker of vows. Conservatives believe that if a president is to be a trusted statesman, his values, morals and ethical behavior, in other words his 'character' would be above reproach. There was a time when it was scandalous to do anything that had the appearance of wrongdoing. Interestingly, this belief and value is identical to the psychoanalytic ideal, the opening up of personal compartments and the development of a person with integrity. Such a person is said to be 'together', whole and intact. There is reason for suspicion for a person to 'act' one way in one situation and another in another. They want a person who says what he means and means what he says, and acts according to his or her words. That is the basis for 'trust' in another person.

The liberals insist that president Clinton has no solid evidence against him. Those who are legalistic define 'evidence' as what is accepted by a court for admission, and then a jury decides if the evidence is valid, significant or true. Of course, that is not the scientific definition of evidence. Science works toward objective evidence, experiments which can be replicated. If you put a lithium salt in a fire, it will burn red. Every time. Easy to see.

The conservatives say the chances are high the man is guilty of at least some of the charges. So far he has avoided prosecution. He could not avoid a deposition on the suit that Paula Jones has launched against him, because he smeared her reputation and won't apologize. Clinton's counsel, Bennett, implying she was untrustworthy, said all you have to do is drag a hundred dollar bill down a trailor park! One can only imagine how trailer park people felt with that one. The Supreme Court prevented a postponement of this case because in our tradition, no one is above the law. The conservatives are sticklers for black and white, for absolute morality. You are either a sinner or you are not. You either broke the law, or you did not.

The liberals, on the other hand, pretty much accept 'situational morality'. In their way of thinking, most of life is in the gray area, a complex and changing mixture of situations and values. The keys are flexibility and pragmatism. You can do whatever, as long as nobody gets hurt. Nothing defines the difference between liberals and conservatives nowadays more than their respective stands on abortion.

Those who analyze election results say that the women of America like Clinton and voted for him. Those are a lot of votes. On the one hand Clinton is young and good looking. On the other hand, he is for abortion, for Roe v Wade. The women's movement took great exception to the nomination of conservative Clarence Thomas, which led to Anita Hill reporting sexual improprieties ten years before. The women more actively derided 'sexual harassment', then, especially in the workplace, so successfully, that now proscriptions are built into laws. The sensitivity to sexual harassment reached the point that many men fear even complimenting a woman's appearance.

It is interesting that in the case of a beleaguered president who is alleged to have indulged in sexual improprieties with a young woman intern, that the women's movement is strangely quiet. Perhaps they like Bill Clinton because his alleged behavior goes along with the free love and free sex which many of these women espouse, therefore needing abortion-on-demand as merely another method of contraception. There are good practical arguments for doing away with an unwanted zygote or embryo or fetus, but the conservatives claim it is murder, as the fertilized egg is the beginning of a unique, God-given human life, and deserves the chance to be born. So far federal law are on the side of pro-choice, as our laws do not recognize that a human being is a person until he or she has been born and have a legal birth certificate. Conservatives do not make a large distinction between an unborn and a born baby. They feel that murder is murder and sin is sin, no matter what the circumstances are. People should be responsible.

And so conservatives feel the president should be responsible, should conduct himself in a mature manner. They are uneasy with a president who might be impulsive, irrational and immature. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the world's only remaining superpower. He has his finger on the nuclear button. He is about to launch another war in the Middle East.

It is interesting how, with the same data, liberals excuse Clinton and conservatives condemn. Is it just partisan politics or do the differences run much deeper?

Dr Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is Life Fellow of the APA, a member of the AMA and of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. email: vbloom@comcast.net