Clinton lets down Democrats again

By Daniel Price

When the American people elected Bill Clinton, LAW '73, President in 1992, only the most naïve thought they were electing a man of impeccable morality. Yet a plurality of those who voted decided that he was better than the alternatives. Most of the votes for Clinton could be accurately characterized as anti-George Bush, DC '48. But regardless of the public's rationale for electing him, Clinton had our support when he entered Washington, D.C. as the first Democrat to move into the White House since Jimmy Carter.

Despite his imperfections, we pegged our hopes and ideals to Clinton. He would care more for the poor and regular people. He would end gay discrimination in the military and reinvigorate the economy.

I was one of those realistic Clinton supporters. I knew that he was not perfect, but I also knew that he was our best shot, and so I spent a lot of time supporting him--most notably three months as an intern in the White House Office of Political Affairs in the summer of 1996.

Yet Clinton has consistently disappointed his Democrat supporters, including myself. From welfare to immigration, Clinton seems to have a very clear view of leadership: read poll numbers like an instruction book. "Likely voters" do not like welfare? Then severely restrict benefits, even if it means eliminating those going to legal immigrants who have lived in the United States for years. Allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military quickly became "don't ask, don't tell." This may be a very effective way to keep a lock on the White House, but it is not an effective means of leadership. One cannot lead from the center. Instead, one has to stake out a position and sway the people to one's views. Clinton rarely, if ever, took a position and stood by it.

But even worse than the poll-driven nature of the Clinton presidency has been its capacity for scandals. Each time another Clinton scandal breaks, I become more disheartened by this President. The most recent accusation--that the President had an affair with 21-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky and asked her to lie under oath--is the most upsetting yet. While all the facts are not in yet, I can assure you that Lewinsky's tenure at the White House was not typical. As a White House intern, the President never called my house, hugged me, or gave me a gift. (Full disclosure: I did get a key chain with the Presidential Seal on it, but not from the man himself.)

It is not even the issue of marital infidelity which concerns me today. But on a moral front, a physical relationship between the leader of the free world and the most junior staffer in the White House is fundamentally abusive. At Yale we have debated whether professor-student relationships should be banned, and the power imbalance in such a situation doesn't even compare to the relationship in question.

Moral arguments, however, seem to hold little sway with Clinton, so I turn to the legal argument. If the President is guilty of obstruction of justice for telling Lewinsky, or anyone else, to lie under oath, he has demonstrated a critical lack of respect for the laws he is supposed to uphold.

This incident is one more attack on the increasingly thin link of trust between the President and those of us who supported him. Clinton stated that he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. So why don't we who supported him do so now? The answer is that Clinton's former supporters feel betrayed by a man who is unable to consider the effects of his actions on others--his wife, his staff, and the Democrats who voted for him.

One day during my summer in the White House, all of the interns were rounded up for a group picture with the President. Before the photo was taken, Clinton thanked us and said that he hoped our time in the White House had inspired us to greater levels of public service. It's ironic, since his time in the White House has had just the opposite effect. Six years ago, I pegged my hopes and ideals for the nation on Bill Clinton. Now I still plan to be involved in politics, but probably far less than I had thought, before that summer in the White House.

Daniel Price is a senior in Trumbull

Back to Opinion...