SUZANNE GARMENT
SUZANNE GARMENT
in American Politics"
You wrote "Scandal" before Clinton came to power. Does Whitewater fit your definition of scandal politics?
It certainly seems so far a classic case, in the sense there may or may not be grave underlying sins, but it's the perceived coverup that has so far caused the most trouble.
If there is no crime, then why the coverup? Why have the Clintons behaved in this manner?
This is a question I have asked myself many times with regard to people involved in scandals. Over and over, you see people who are in most respects highly rational and calculating about themselves as well as about their situations. Yet they panic and behave irrationally. As time goes on it becomes harder and harder to do the confessional thing and make your bid for public forgiveness.
And the panic is exacerbated by scandal politics?
Yes. One of the reasons that these scandals are such hell for those involved, even apart from the potential consequences, is the question of guilt, and the attendant question of shame. Psychological explanations are never my first choice, but I think that some of these scandals, these crises, stir up various kinds of guilt and shame that otherwise cannot be faced. Erica Jong said people used to explain President Clinton's fudging as part of the child-of-alcoholic-syndrome -- a not wanting to dig too deep because of this shameful secret in the past. And Jong said Mrs. Clinton may have something of the equivalent, the philanderer syndrome -- that is, the philandering husband syndrome.
Is there anything different about Whitewater? Isn't this the first time that a presidential scandal has blown up over activities that began almost 18 years ago?
It's a continuation of the culture wars, which first came up with Clinton, and the Vietnam war, and the draft -- events that are even older. Those wars are still being played out. How you behaved then -- during the political "big bang" of the '60s -- even though it's now 20-30 years later, remains politically relevant. Whitewater is another engagement in the battle, because the culture wars which began in the '60s also included questions of one's attitude towards the system, towards capitalism, towards money-making.
So, we wind up with the "hypocrisy" of the once radical Clintons, which seems to piss many people off in a visceral way.
This I have figured out. You know, during that time of division, people made bets. And the Clintons seem to be saying that even though they bet on the radical route, they got the benefit of working within the system. I think that's what drives some of their adversaries a little bonkers. And of course, Mrs. Clinton has made it worse, because of her moralizing. Talking about other people's greed is not a very prudent idea under these circumstances, but she does it all the time. So, you ask for it.
Especially when you've just made $100,000 in cattle futures.
Yes. It's just not appropriate, as the shrinks would say.