Now, I have no quarrel with Schulwolf's characterization of Mr. Foley as a "pervert." I too think that those Republicans responsible for protecting him should resign. My question for Schulwolf, and for thoughtful Democrats like him, is: Are you willing to hold your party to the same standard?
Consider the case of Bill Clinton. When his extramarital silliness came to light, most Democrats defended Clinton by describing his indiscretions as discreet, private acts which could not serve as the basis for impeachment. Even feminists who would have been, at least under normal circumstances, full of clever ideas about the power dynamics of sexual harassment, also defended Clinton. Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed in The New York Times which argued that feminists should tolerate the Arkansan Satyr. In response to those feminists who thought that Clinton should be sacked for his behavior, Steinem wrote, "If President Clinton were as vital to preserving freedom of speech as he is to preserving reproductive freedom, would journalists be condemned as "inconsistent" for refusing to suggest he resign? Forget it." In other words: "Protect that man: He's on our team." Other prominent Democrats, including those poised to lead the House and Senate, preached forgiveness toward the same convenient end.
John Kerry? Of Clinton: "There is a simple question but a question of enormous consequence: Do we really want to remove a President of the United States because he tried to avoid discovery in a civil case of a private, consensual affair with a woman?" Of impeachment: "We must decide whether the removal of the President is proportional to the offense and we must remember that proportionality, fairness, rule of law-they must be applied not just to convict, but also to defend-to balance the equities."
Harry Reid? Of Kenneth Starr: "No prosecutor of integrity, of principle, of fairness would have tried to bootstrap a sexual affair into something criminal." Reid compared Clinton to a more luminous predecessor: "Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill's stalwart comrade and the author of policies which saved the very lives of families of many in this Chamber today, died in the arms of his lover. Each of us, each one of us in this Chamber, every human being, is flawed. Each of us needs all the forgiveness and forbearing we can be granted by the charity of others."
Nancy Pelosi? On the Articles of Impeachment against Clinton: "I urge my colleagues to vote no, stop this hatchet job on the presidency, stop this hypocrisy, stop this hatred."
One might reply: That's just politics. But my question for Schulwolf is not about politics, but about consistency. Were the leading lights of the Democratic Party hypocritical in the same way as Messrs. Hastert and Reynolds? Did the Democratic Party relinquish its claim to moral leadership, too? If so, how has the Party reclaimed its innocence?
For Schulwolf's decision to vote for the Democrats to fit with his accusation against Republicans, he must either explain why some peccadilloes are worse than others-recalling that Clinton's peccadilloes included perjury before a grand jury-or abandon the notion of a moral standard which applies equally to both parties. I myself would rather accept the notion that both parties are full of scum and vote for policies, not personalities.
Montana hates dirty politicians and double standards almost as much as he likes roast peaches, crème brûlée and Maker's Mark. He can be reached at jmontana08@amherst.edu.