It's a Twofer!

To the Editor:

My hat is off to William Davies' article on Jan. 30 for bringing Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy to light.

If my memory is accurate, I recall her husband's near impeachment. Hillary's haughtiness knows no bounds. How dare she accuse the Bush administration of corruption - the Clinton's' invented the word! They couldn't even leave the White House without taking some souvenir furniture.

Vicki

---------------------------------------------

To the Editor:

The world is laughing as the media destroys our country with this current character assassination. I laugh as I see reference to our "stumbling economy," Mr. Clinton being so truthful and his humble beginnings.

What more do we need to make people realize which party is the party of the people?

Stephen

Two letters in the same entry? Anarchy! Chaos! Well, no, just two letters that show similar examples of what happens when people react emotionally instead of thinking critically, both published on the same day. Both letters attempt to use misdirection to deflect criticism of the current administration. I'm not sure whom Vicki and Stephen are attempting to convince; theirs are not exactly strong arguments, and are unlikely to persuade anyone who didn't agree with them already. Their letters almost sound like schoolyard taunts, and carry no real weight of political argument in defense of their party or the Bush administration. What they make obvious is that they have bought into the neoconservative strategy of attacking the person instead of the politics, eliciting a stronger visceral response without the need for uncomfortable reflection on the actual issues at hand.

I am the first to admit that I was not a supporter of the Clinton presidency. I felt that Clinton's demeanor was unbecoming in a national leader, and that he pandered when he should have been making principled stands. Regardless, everything that I held against Clinton pales in comparison with the arrogance, opacity, and duplicity of the Bush White House. What would the reaction from the far right have been if Bill Clinton had been discovered circumventing the law to wiretap American citizens? Don't kid yourself for even a second; the man was brought up for impeachment for getting a blowjob. Had he done anything on par with the Bush administration's misdeeds, he'd have been crucified. Yet Bush is forgiven; we accept and even expect duplicity from him. I don't believe this is indicative of actual public support for things like domestic espionage, security leaks for political purposes, or institutionalized torture. Instead, it shows a conflict in the American psyche: the desire for loyalty and acceptance versus the desire for justice and ethics. Being social creatures, it's not surprising that sometimes the former wins out. Ultimately, however, this is not an excuse for blindly following corruption for the sake of personal safety and national pride.

The reality of the situation is that there is no "party of the people," and frankly, I'm a little bit shocked to hear neoconservative supporters so easily borrow from the soviet communist lexicon. Both of the major political parties in this country, at their core, are founded on the principles of serving the people. Neither party can claim a monopoly on serving the people or concern for the welfare of the country, and believing that one does is buying into the laziest, weakest, most reprehensible of political fantasies. There are dedicated men and women of public service in both parties, just as there are self-serving, corrupt career politicians in both parties. It's barely worth addressing the baseless personal attacks that have become the weapon of choice for the most vicious of the right-wing activists, though Clinton's rise from poverty to Rhodes Scholar is well documented, and the source of the furniture-theft story has already admitted that he was instructed to report the story, which began as an e-mail joke, by the current administration. I wonder if, when laughing at the "stumbling economy," Stephen laughs at the growing number of unemployed Americans, or those in the lowest income bracket, who have seen their incomes steadily decline over the last six years while oil companies and defense contractors have posted profits unprecedented in modern history. I can assure him that he doesn't laugh with them. It is this callous, arrogant attitude that best shows what has become of our political system. Defense of values and ideals comes a distant second to self-righteous posturing and personal attacks against those who dare to disagree. Instead of defending the president's actions from the criticism leveled by Senator Clinton and some of the media, both Vicki and Stephen ignore the base issues of dishonesty and incompetence without even appearing to notice they're doing it. Their letters are evidence of the success of the neoconservative movement in their attempt to drain intellectual debate from the realm of government, and replace it with easily controlled emotional response.

The Clinton White House, while far from the paragon of ethical leadership some would make it out to be, was nonetheless plagued by far fewer scandals and improprieties than the Bush Administration, if for no other reason than they were hindered by a Congress controlled by the opposing party. A better comparison to the Bush Administration would be the Nixon presidency, which pursued similar attempts to increase executive power, something Clinton never advocated for. It was from the arrogance of executive power that Nixon's scandals originated, just as we see happening now. If you support the shift in American government towards authoritarian control as pushed by the Bush administration, that's fine, but at least have the courage and conviction to admit that you do and stand by it. If you do not wish to see America become more authoritarian, and you believe that the President is still a public servant in the employ of the American people, than it is incumbent upon you to question why an employee would strive so hard to work in secrecy and dismantle the systems of oversight and accountability you've set up for him. Just liking the man is no excuse for turning a blind eye to his actions. As American citizens, we have a responsibility to ask the tough questions and, if necessary, act on them.