The Clinton Meltdown: The Bystander

FROM time to time, the Clintons explain that their troubles are just more evidence of how much good they have done. The motivation of the vast rightwing conspiracy, they say, is outrage at President Clinton’s policies of “change.” During his early-August vacation in the Hamptons, for instance, Mr. Clinton said, “You know sometimes when you try to effect that kind of transformation, you know you’re going to provoke a reaction.” This is pathetic. What transformation could Clinton possibly be referring to? AmeriCorps? School uniforms? Are conservatives frightened of the panel on race relations he wants to make his legacy? The Clinton Presidency has been inconsequential for public policy.

Keep this in mind when people talk about the “tragedy” of Bill Clinton’s throwing away his Presidency for sex after all he has accomplished, all the promise he had, etc. (“That’s tragedy by any definition”—George Stephanopoulos.) It is becoming clearer and clearer, anyway, that Clinton’s gratification was the point all along; we just weren’t paying attention. Troopergate should have warned us that here was a man who not only would be reckless in his lusts, but would use the power of the state to indulge them and would organize his politics around them. (Thank you, David Brock.)

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

FROM time to time, the Clintons explain that their troubles are just more evidence of how much good they have done. The motivation of the vast rightwing conspiracy, they say, is outrage at President Clinton’s policies of “change.” During his early-August vacation in the Hamptons, for instance, Mr. Clinton said, “You know sometimes when you try to effect that kind of transformation, you know you’re going to provoke a reaction.” This is pathetic. What transformation could Clinton possibly be referring to? AmeriCorps? School uniforms? Are conservatives frightened of the panel on race relations he wants to make his legacy? The Clinton Presidency has been inconsequential for public policy.

Keep this in mind when people talk about the “tragedy” of Bill Clinton’s throwing away his Presidency for sex after all he has accomplished, all the promise he had, etc. (“That’s tragedy by any definition”—George Stephanopoulos.) It is becoming clearer and clearer, anyway, that Clinton’s gratification was the point all along; we just weren’t paying attention. Troopergate should have warned us that here was a man who not only would be reckless in his lusts, but would use the power of the state to indulge them and would organize his politics around them. (Thank you, David Brock.)