_______________ THE CLINTON CRISIS (01/22-27/98)

Am I the only one unwilling to let David Horowitz's hideously snide column, "We believe you, scumbag," pass without comment? I'm writing to take him to task for some very uninformed comments masquerading as intellectual commentary. As a young feminist who came of age during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, and who has more recently been schooled in the nuances of modern feminism, I was insulted by Horowitz's blanket attack. In an era when conservatives and liberals alike clamor to be held distinct in their views, Horowitz's column generalizing the work and views of feminists lacked credibility and, even worse, exhibited his laziness and inability to effectively characterize the feminist issues that rightly deserve to be examined. Instead, he comes off as a braying, I-told-you-so conservative, looking to blame women for not mobilizing behind their own and finding fault where it doesn't exist. Since when are all women alike anyway? Or is that news to Horowitz also? (He probably thinks they are.) Feminism, just like conservatism, cannot be generalized. Both schools of thought contain distinct yet differing aspects that make their proponents and believers also unique. I have conservative AND liberal feminist colleagues and acquaintances, and our views of feminism differ in many respects. Horowitz doesn't even take time to consider the differing feminist views of both the Thomas-Hill and Paula Jones issues, much debated in feminist circles, preferring instead to generalize the whole situation. How convenient -- lumping them together is so much easier. And while these feminist issues DO need to be examined in light of the scandal, it was ridiculously naive of Horowitz to think that feminists, with all their diversity and unique opinions, should automatically jump to Monica's defense, without knowing all the details of the alleged affair. After all, that's what the country is trying to do before considering dumping Clinton -- get to the facts and then form an opinion. Need I mention Horowitz's malicious use of the words "shrill" and "goon squads" to incite bias? In the absence of a credibly constructed argument, Horowitz further insults us by stirring emotion through name calling. Lest you think I'm complaining about the quality of journalism here, I'm not. It's fascinating to read columns from across the ideological spectrum and Salon deserves credit for finding and striking that fascinating mix. Keep up the good work. -- Lisa Roy Davis Indiana, Pa. David Horowitz, along with all the other men who wonder where the feminists have been regarding Paula and Monica, you just don't get it!!! Yet!!! The reason why we have stayed loyal is that both women were apparently consenting (Paula seemed eager to meet the governor, according to the trooper) AND we know damn well that Clinton and the Democrats will stand up for women's rights, while said rights are not even on Repugnican radar screens, unless they want to shoot them down. I wish you guys would get a clue! -- Nancy Wiebe Ferndale, Wash. The essential point David Horowitz is missing in his "analysis" of why feminists are by and large silent on the issue of Clinton's alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky is consent. Unlike Anita Hill, Lewinsky welcomed -- and may have initiated -- a sexual relationship with Clinton. In his rush to insult and discredit feminists, Horowitz forgets to listen to what we are saying: that women have the right to make our own choices, including the right to say yes to sexual advances if we choose, without forfeiting the right to say no when we choose. -- Lisa Jervis I just read Camille Paglia's "Animal House," about President Clinton's sexual impulsiveness, and had to reply since I am medically trained and have had experience in the field of mental health. I agree that his problems come, to some degree, from nurture, but if you have read anything about his charming, manipulative real father, you know that genetics may have the upper hand here. Take a look at "Personality Disorders." These folks are very bright, often have photographic memories and, because of their charm and manipulative ability (the reason professionals hate to deal with them on the rare occasion when they come to the attention of the mental health community), often rise to high positions in society, nearly always to the detriment of those who trust them with responsibility. Keep in mind that the manifestations of these disorders overlap and, of course, in some cases are less or more serious. I believe President Clinton, very unfortunately, has manifestations of this disorder, which, if correct, is very tragic for him but more tragic for the nation if he makes a big mistake while satisfying his ego. I must disagree with you on the workaholism. We do not know that he has been working. Personality disordered people are often very hyperactive and unfortunately, sometimes, this hyperactivity comes from substances they like to use (I am not saying I believe the president is on drugs). In fact, I would guess that the huge amount of time spent traveling on Air Force One (much more than other presidents) was a hidden way to satisfy his drives and lusts while giving the impression of doing business. A dearth of visits to Camp David indicates to me the lack of family togetherness. That is a place where prior first families went to get away and have some time together. -- Patricia A. Gooch SALON | Jan. 28, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| THE CLINTON CRISIS

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.