HOME / the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Katha Pollitt and Andrew Sullivan

the breakfast table:
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Re: Is Clinton the Devil? Or just his good friend?

By Andrew Sullivan
Posted Monday, May 4, 1998, at 5:19 PM ET

Katha,

RSS

Actually, I do think that Clinton's inability to take responsibility for anything is far deeper than Reagan's. I remember that broadcast where RR finally said that, although his heart told him he didn't exchange arms for hostages, the evidence proved that he had. There. He did admit it. I don't think Reagan was deeply involved in the arms-for-hostages process either. In broader areas, Reagan clearly stood for things--anti-communism, for example--and stuck to his guns (so to speak). He remained answerable for the results. Clinton has stood for very little, and what little he has stood for he has slithered away from at every opportunity, if it meant any cost or pain. Even Bush was better--a war he could have lost, a defensible tax-hike he paid for dearly. There was risk because there was a small degree of conviction. With Clinton, there is no conviction, no risk, no reward.

So I think people are genuinely uneasy with Clinton's character. I'm uneasy with it because it goes against the values I was brought up with: you tell the truth, stick to your principles, and face the consequences of your actions. He does none of this, from petty obstruction of justice to big-issue betrayals. I think some conservatives are uneasy with him for the reasons you cite; and because they associate him with the boomer generation, whose moral and psychological grip on reality is famously suspect. I don't think they're jealous. The Bubba vote actually rallied round Clinton once he became a recognizable "redneck philanderer" rather than a "liberal pinko sleaze." As to Hillary, she is of a piece with Bill, in my book, whatever David Brock says.

best,
Andrew

p.s. Oh, and talking about responsibility, a hilarious (I suppose) moment this weekend, which reminded me of our chat last week. Walking down 17th Street on Saturday, I was greeted by a May Day Communist march. About 500 people, red flags, slogans about the "working class" and a 1930s-style poster of Stalin. Most people laughed at it, but I was stunned at how many of the marchers were under 30. One teenager seriously explained to me that the Ukrainians "starved themselves." Yes, I know these people are representative of nothing. But I wonder what our response would be if a group of young Nazis walked down the street, with swastika flags, pictures of Hitler, and claims that the Jews of Europe never perished. Would we smile indulgently? Has our moral sensibility become sadly dependent on identity politics? I'm not saying, of course, that we should pay less attention to Hitler's evil, merely that we need to pay more to Stalin's. One generation has already clearly forgotten.

the breakfast table:
entries