[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E336-E337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WHY IT MATTERS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 10, 1998

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who missed it, I would like to 
bring an opinion piece from the March 6th Wall Street Journal to the 
attention of my colleagues. William J. Bennett has once again provided 
an insightful analysis on recent developments in the White House that 
demands the consideration of Congress and the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Mr. Bennett to the 
attention of all interested parties.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 6, 1998]

                             Why It Matters

                        (By William J. Bennett)

       In the matter of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, almost 
     everything points to the conclusion that something unseemly 
     happened: the tapes; Ms. Lewinsky's 37 visits to the White 
     House; Mr. Clinton's morning-after-the-deposition meeting 
     with his secretary, Betty Currie; the gifts; the talking 
     points; Vernon Jordan's many activities; the job offer from 
     United Nations Ambassador Bill Richardson; the president's 
     stonewalling; his initial, unconvincing denial; his refusal 
     to explain what happened; Press Secretary Mike McCurry's 
     remark that the relationship is probably ``very 
     complicated''; and White House surrogates' declaration of 
     ``war'' against the independent counsel.
       Nevertheless, many Americans think the scandal--even if 
     true--is either ``none of our business'' or not worth the 
     effort to inquire about. This apparent indifference is 
     surprising and unsettling. It is therefore important to 
     respond to the most common arguments made by those who 
     believe that a president's sexual involvement with a 21-year-
     old intern, and the ensuing suspected coverup, are 
     essentially irrelevant to our national life:
       We shouldn't be judgmental. At a recent speech before an 
     organization of religious broadcasters, I criticized the 
     president's unwillingness to explain what happened in the 
     Lewinsky matter. A member of the audience took me to task for 
     ``casting stones.'' I responded that it shows how far we have 
     fallen that asking the president to account for possible 
     adultery, lying to the public, perjury and obstruction of 
     justice is regarded as akin to stoning. This is an example of 
     what sociologist Alan Wolfe refers to as America's new 
     ``Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not judge.''


                              Lost Its Way

       Even the Rev. Billy Graham declared yesterday: ``I forgive 
     him. . . . I know how hard it is, and especially a strong, 
     vigorous, young man like he is; he has such a tremendous 
     personality. I think the ladies just go wild over him.'' Mr. 
     Graham, perhaps the nation's most admired religious figure, 
     apparently is willing to shrug off both adultery and lying, 
     without any public admission or apology on Mr. Clinton's 
     part. This is what the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called 
     ``cheap grace.''
       All of us are in favor of tolerance and forgiveness. But 
     the moral pendulum in America has swung too far in the 
     direction of relativism. If a nation of free people can no 
     longer make clear pronouncements on fundamental matters of 
     right and wrong--for example, that a married, 50-year-old 
     commander-in-chief ought not to have sexual relations with a 
     young intern in his office and then lie about it--it has lost 
     its way.
       The problem is not with those who are withholding judgment 
     until all the facts are in, but with the increasing number of 
     people who want to avoid judgment altogether. For it is 
     precisely the disposition and willingness to make judgments 
     about things that matter that is a defining mark of a 
     healthy democracy. In America we do not defer to kings, 
     cardinals or aristocrats on matters of law and politics, 
     civic conduct and moral standards. We rely instead on the 
     people's capacity to make reasonable judgments based on 
     moral principles. Our form of government requires of us 
     not moral perfection but modest virtues, and adherence to 
     some standards. How high should those standards be? 
     Certainly higher than the behavior alleged in this case.

[[Page E337]]

       Those who constantly invoke the sentiment of ``Who are we 
     to judge?'' should consider the anarchy that would ensue if 
     we adhered to this sentiment in, say, our courtrooms. What 
     would happen if those sitting on a jury decided to be 
     ``nonjudgmental'' about rapists and sexual harassers, 
     embezzlers and tax cheats? Justice would be lost. Without 
     being ``judgmental,'' Americans would never have put an end 
     to slavery, outlawed child labor, emancipated women or 
     ushered in the civil-rights movement. Nor would we have 
     mobilized against Nazism and communism.
       Mr. Clinton himself put it well, in a judgment-laden 1996 
     proclamation he signed during National Character Week, which 
     said that ``individual character involves honoring and 
     embracing certain core ethical values: honesty, respect, 
     responsibility. . . . Parents must teach their children from 
     the earliest age the difference between right and wrong. But 
     we must all do our part.''
       A president's private behavior doesn't matter. In a recent 
     Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 57% said that private 
     character doesn't matter at all or matters only if it 
     interferes with his ability to do the job. Of course, if Mr. 
     Clinton did have sexual encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, it 
     involves at least adultery and lying to the public--and 
     probably lying under oath as well. In any event, the attempt 
     to rigidly compartmentalize life in this way is divorced from 
     the real world. A mother would not accept from her son the 
     explanation that his drug habit doesn't matter because he did 
     well on the Scholastic Assessment Test; a police commissioner 
     should not dismiss the raw bigotry of a detective because he 
     has a good arrest record.
       Yet in the name of ``compartmentalization,'' many now seem 
     willing to accept raunchier behavior from our president than 
     we would from any CEO, college professor or Army drill 
     sergeant. Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo put it this way: 
     ``Let's remember what's important here. The lives of the 
     American people are more important than the personal life of 
     the president.'' But Mr. Clinton is a laboratory test case of 
     why private character is relevant. Prevarications typify 
     his private and public life. A seamless web of deceit runs 
     through the man and through his administration.
       John Adams held a far different view than Mr. Cuomo does. 
     Adams wrote that the people ``have a right, an indisputable. 
     unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded 
     and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and 
     conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, 
     agents, and trustees, for the people; and if the cause, the 
     interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly 
     trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority 
     than they themselves have deputed.''
       To better understand the limits of the ``private-public'' 
     argument, imagine the storm that would engulf a president who 
     privately supported a whites-only membership policy in a 
     country club. Most voters would rightly deem this private 
     sentiment to be of intense public interest. Why, then, are we 
     supposed to accept a man in the Oval Office whom many parents 
     would not trust alone with their daughters?
       The only thing that matters is the economy. ``What we 
     should be talking about is that we are going to have the 
     first balanced budget in more than three decades.'' says one 
     citizen, who voted against Mr. Clinton in 1996. ``That's 
     going to impact our children, not this sleaze that is 
     masquerading as news.'' This sentiment reveals an arid and 
     incomplete understanding of the presidency. More than any 
     other person, the president symbolizes America. He stands for 
     us in the eyes of the world and of our children, who 
     inevitably learn from his example. Whether or not Bill 
     Clinton escapes impeachment, his legacy will be one of 
     pervasive deceit, squandered trust, a reckless disregard for 
     the truth, heightened cynicism and a nastier political 
     culture.


                          A Rogue in Our Midst

       This corruption matters a great deal. Even if the Dow Jones 
     breaks 10000. Even if Americans get more day care. Even if 
     the budget is balanced. It matters because lessons in 
     corruption, particularly when they emanate from the highest 
     office in the land, undermine our civic life. Children are 
     watching, and if we expect them to take morality seriously, 
     they must see adults take it seriously. As C.S. Lewis wrote: 
     ``We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and 
     enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find 
     traitors in our midst.''
       Today we find not a traitor but a rogue in our midst. Of 
     course, rogues have been with us forever, and the corruption 
     of people in power is at least as old as the Scriptures. But 
     in America today, more and more citizens seem to be complicit 
     in that corruption. One worry of the Founders was that luxury 
     and affluence might dull our moral sensibilities. The next 
     few months will go a long way toward determining how strongly 
     we believe in something we once revered as ``our sacred 
     honor.''

     

                          ____________________