Is it Time to Hold Bill Clinton Accountable?

I remember becoming aware about issues of sexual harassment. It was when I was in graduate school. The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy was all over the television. I was captured by the drama.

I think I lived a bit of a sheltered life. It never occurred to me that a man as prominent as someone who could be a Supreme Court Judge would make the kind of comments to a woman that Thomas was accused of making. Go ahead and call me naïve, but I was shocked at the accusations. At the end of the day, I realized that the case against him was probably not strong enough to disqualify him from office, but it certainly did illustrate some of the problems women have with sexual harassment in our society. I envisioned the entire episode as a win for awareness of the plight of women.

Then a few years later Bill Clinton came onto the scene. Following him were a list of accusations that made the Thomas/Hill hearings look like child’s play. We did not just have off-color or filthy jokes. We had accusations of the groping of Kathleen Willey, exposure of penis to Paula Jones and even rape of Juanita Broaddrick. And to be honest the evidence against Clinton seemed stronger than that against Thomas. If the feminist were able to parlay the Thomas/Hill hearings into much needed publicity, just imagine what they could do with a sitting president of the United States.

Except they did not do anything with it. Gloria Steinem, most prominent feminist of that day, wrote an editorial saying that it was basically just a clumsy pass. The women were vilified, and not believed by the feminists. It was clear that the only thing the feminists wanted to do was sweep this under the rug. And when they did that, any respect I had for organized feminism died.

You see for me this is about principle and not politics. Men should not sexually harass or assault women. It does not matter whether you agree with me politically or religiously or in any other way. It does not even matter if I like you or not. If you are a man and you are sexually harassing or assaulting women, then I will not let you off the hook. But when the feminists were so deferential to President Clinton, they showed me that it was about politics. They were eager to attack the conservative Justice but not the pro-choice President. How could I respect that?

I could not respect that. Nor can I respect the automatic defense some of my Christian friends have offered to the Senate candidate Roy Moore. The fact that some Christians supported him more after his accusations than before is horrifying. This is the kind of action that produces incredible damage to our Christian witness.

However, things do appear to be spinning out of control for the Moore campaign. As more women come forward, it seems more likely that he will either be forced out of the race or that he will lose. Another poll was brought to my attention which shows that Christians are turning on him, and rightly so. This is not likely to turn into a long-term example of hypocrisy.

For that we need to turn our attention back to Clinton. Over the last few months, we have seen the symbolic equivalent of a “perp walk” for the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., and dozens of other men. A time of reckoning has come. As far as I am concerned, it has not come soon enough.

But missing among those held to account is Bill Clinton. Can anyone truly say that the evidence of what he is accused of doing is any more lacking than in the case of Moore? Can anyone defend any of his accused actions as acceptable? By any reasonable measure, the circumstances surrounding Clinton are as bad as many of the other men who have been cast out of polite society.

So why are other men made into outcasts instead of Clinton? Obviously a few months ago, the motivation was clear. The Democrats were trying to put his wife into the White House and did not need this type of distraction. But that race is now over. So why no attention to Clinton’s misdeeds now? Is the silence so that we can remember Clinton and the good old days of his presidency? Do we not dare spit on that?

I am not interested in a political argument about what kind of president Clinton was. Spacey was a phenomenal actor. He is not likely to ever work again as an actor. My understanding is that Weinstein was also very good at producing movies, but he is done as well. Spacey and Weinstein are not only done in their occupation but they are also done in public life. They are not coming back. So why does Clinton still have a place in public life?

I think we are seeing a replay of what happened when he was president. The feminists stepped in to save their man. They wanted to preserve his presidency. Now there is a larger progressive framework that wants to preserve the mythology of the Clinton presidency. He obviously can never be president again, but there is a certain nostalgia that powers this desire to leave Clinton alone. I am getting that same feeling of disdain for such progressives as I developed against feminists nearly thirty years ago.

Hey, I am supposed to be a bigoted sexist Christian, but I will throw a believer under the bus in a minute if I believe he did half of what Clinton is accused of doing. I will counsel him as a friend, but I will not support him in continuing in public life. If I can do that, then why are those for whom this is a critical issue – progressives and feminists – not willing to do the same to Clinton? Do they really believe their rhetoric about it being time to clean up the mess some men have made with their misuse of power or is that merely a ploy to use against their political enemies?

When I see President Clinton get the Weinstein treatment, then I will begin to believe that those who talk a great game about women’s rights actually believe what they are saying. Do not give me excuses about he is no longer relevant or that was long ago. Moore’s supposed transgressions are decades old. Cosby was all but retired when his accusers started taking bites out of him. If this is the new sexual regimen that we are setting up to protect women, then I am fine with that. But as long as we have the huge obvious exception to these new rules in a position of honor as a former president, then you will pardon some of us from feeling a little suspicious of the motivations of those pushing these new social rules.