 |
| |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||
Each week our Boomer-In-Charge, Hershel Chicowitz, has something to say about life, society, or what's going on... from the perspective of a baby boomer. This is what's on his mind the week of November 23:
Who'd have ever thought it? Last January the pundits were predicting the imminent resignation of Bill Clinton. Ten months later, the cover of "Newsweek" shows a picture of Newt Gingrich, and calls him "The Loser." Never mind that Republicans got more votes than Democrats in the recent election. You won't see "Newsweek" telling you that on the cover.
(Of course, if you have some perspective, this should have been easy to predict. Three years ago when the White House would not commit to a balanced budget plan, the government closed down for a couple weeks, federal employees received an extra, paid vacation, and "Newsweek" referred to Newt as "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas.")
So we have Bill Clinton, who has engaged in behavior that is "inexcusable," even by his own admission. He has brought disgrace to his party, the presidency, and to his country. He has lied repeatedly to everyone around him and committed multiple felonies. His primary defense is to attack his accusers' character in an effort to turn attention away from his misdeeds. But selfishly, he would never consider resigning.
Then we have Newt Gingrich, "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas," who saw that, even though he probably could win re-election as Speaker, decided that it would not be in the party's or the House's best interests. So he bowed out.
And Newt is "The Loser."
So what is the lesson here, friends? (And don't think for a moment that there is not a lesson!)
And even though the exit polls in election day said that people were voting for a candidate and not for or against Bill Clinton, the press and the White House are playing it as a personal victory for Bill Clinton.
The silver lining in all this may be that we receive some lessons in civics... the ones we apparently skipped in high school.
On an elementary level, we might have a chance to clarify what a lie is. In 1992, President Bush said, "Read my lips; no new taxes." (Although credit for this line should go to his terrific speech writer, Peggy Noonan.) But later, as we all know, he agreed to a tax increase. When he said, "no new taxes," was he lying? Or did what he said magically turn into a lie when he signed the tax increase? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
Well, of course, he was not lying. What he did when the signed the tax bill was break a promise to the American people. While that may be just as offensive an act, an act which resulted in political suicide, what he said was not a lie. (Personally, I would call what he did cowardly, but he is not a liar.)
Of more importance, we may have a chance to explore just what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are. Perhaps we can all agree as to what "high crimes" are. But what is a "misdemeanor"? If your neighbor shouts obscenities and threatens you at a party, that is an assault - a misdemeanor. But is that what the Constitution refers to? As Ann Coulter outlines in her excellent bestseller, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," the term "misdemeanor," as it is used in the Constitution, comes from the Latin words "mis," for bad or inappropriate; and "demeanor," for conduct or behavior. In other words, it means bad or inappropriate conduct. Does that pretty well describe what Bill Clinton did? Well, you decide. (I don't care if you don't like it; that's the way it is.)
Back on the legal front, we may have a chance to explore what a felony is. According to the law, lying in a federal deposition is a felony. The law does not express or imply that if a man is lying merely about adultery, it is not really all that bad. And surprisingly, the law does not say that if the president is lying, he gets a pass on it. The law is very clear; and 115 Americans currently serving in prison for lying in a federal proceeding can attest to that.
The upcoming, abbreviated impeachment hearings may give us a chance to learn what kind of government we have. Do we live under a pure democracy? If you answered yes... you are simply wrong.
Suppose 60 men and 40 women living in a pure democratic community took a vote to decide who should do all the cooking and the cleaning. The 60 men might vote that the women should do it. Majority rules; case closed.
We do not live in a pure democracy; we live in a representative democracy. We elect leaders to represent us in the legislature. So should our representatives simply do what the polls dictate? Are they leaders or followers? According to the philosophy of a representative democracy, our elected officials are supposed to lead, study the issues, and pass laws based on what is moral and right, not what is necessarily popular. That is the duty of a "leader." In my example, under a representative democracy, the 60 men and 40 women would elect representatives (whose sex would be immaterial). And if they decided the issue on a moral and fair basis, they would ignore the polls and do the right thing.
The polls say that the American people do not want the president to be impeached. (Of course, our poll here at BBHQ showed that half of our visitors think that the president controls the economy. Sorry, you could not be more wrong.) So our duly elected officials, Republican, Democratic, or otherwise, will have to decide if they are simply puppets of the people or their party, and if, as a result, they are willing to allow a president who has committed a felony to remain in office. Or, are they instead, moral and legal leaders who will not allow the chief law enforcement officer of the country who has committed a felony to remain in office.
If it goes far enough, we may also be able to debate the purpose of removing a president from office. We removed Senator Packwood from office after he forced himself on women numerous times. Did we do so to punish him? No; that is the job of the courts. We removed him from office because he brought enormous discredit and disgrace upon the Senate and the country. By removing him, we made a moral statement about right and wrong, and we did what we could to preserve the dignity of the Senate - an as yet incomplete task, I readily acknowledge.
As usual, the press, in cooperation with the White House, has got it all wrong. Removal from office is not about punishing Bill Clinton. That was never the intent of the founders of the constitution; they were not that petty. We are that petty; they were not. Punishment is for the courts to dispense. We cannot punish Bill Clinton by removing him from office. Bill Clinton is simply beyond punishment and disgrace. He has shown that repeatedly. Removal from office is about preserving the integrity of the office of the president. Period. The question of impeachment should focus on whether Bill Clinton has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," and whether we wish to preserve the integrity of the office of president in response.
To judge the president so harshly would be downright.... judgmental. How unfair can you get? Judgmentalism belongs in the fifties; we are beyond that here in the nineties.
And then, after we have disposed of this and allowed the president to "get back to the work of the American people," we'll have to learn to live with the hypocrisy relating to Lt. Kelley Flynn. She is the former Air Force pilot we threw out of the military for having an affair with a married man and lying about it. The line was that we could not have a pilot flying B-52 bombers which might carry nuclear weapons who has lied to her superior officers. But apparently the man who has his finger on the nuclear button can lie all he wants.
But if we are to believe the polls, we do not care about that... not as long as the Dow is at 8500, unemployment is as 4%, and interest rates remain low.
How could we possibly look at it otherwise? After all, we are boomers, aren't we?
If you want to write more, we're open to offerings from other boomers. If you have something to say of interest to boomers, write it as well as you can in 500-800 words, and send it to us. We can't guarantee we'll publish it, but we'll surely consider it.
Hershel will have something else to say on December 7; mark your calendar to come back to BBHQ every Monday.
| The BBHQ Album of the Month is "Old Friends Live on Stage (Deluxe Edition) (2 CD/1 DVD)," by Simon & Garfunkel. If you were fortunate enough to see them in concert last year, I do not have to sell you. The concert was terrific! This album collection includes 55 songs, plus their new recording, "Citizen of the Planet," and one of the songs sung by the Everly Brothers during the concert. The DVD was recorded during their concert in Madison Square Garden in 2003. For any S&G fan, this is a must have! But then, you knew that already, didn't you? |
 |
|
The BBHQ Book of the Month is
"Vinyl Highway," by
Dee Dee Phelps. You remember her as Dee Dee, of Dick and Dee Dee.
Together, they took a decade long ride on the rock and roll roller
coaster. It was a heck of a ride! Dick Clark, Quincy Jones, the Beach
Boys, Glenn Campbell, Dionne Warwick, Bobby Vinton... Dick and Dee Dee
rubbed shoulders with all of them. This is her "behind the scenes" story.
It's pretty cool.
|
 | ||
 
|
|   |
Copyright © 1998-2008, Baby Boomer HeadQuarters (BBHQ) All rights reserved.