Home | Libros | Prensa | Biografía | Contacto | Compra | Recomienda

The News - Novedades Editores - Mexico City
22 de diciembre de 1998
©1994: Suzanne Cane y Olvera

A CASE OF CONFUSED PRIORITIES

In this day and age of e-mailed jokes, I hadn't really expected to get to bed tonight without seeing more words of impeachment wisdom. This one joke has Mr. Clinton consulting the ghosts of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln for advice. George Washington tells him to set an honest and honorable example. Thomas Jefferson advises him to cut taxes and reduce the size of the government. Abraham Lincoln tells him to go to the theater!

And it might even be funny if everything about the whole situation were not so pathetically unfunny. Perhaps, if I lived in the U.S. I might find something amusing about the Clinton scandal, but I don't, and I don't. I live in Mexico, and I can only be saddened.

Don't get me wrong. I have voted Democrat since before the Constitution would let me vote at age 18. I was raised in a Democratic family (that is how it was in those days), and I still think of American party affiliation more on a cultural and philosophical level than politically. That probably explains why I was such a staunch Brooklyn Dodger fan, the Dodgers being the first major league team to integrate, and all that.

It is very likely that that philosophical interpretation of American party politics also explains why I cannot understand why so many Democrats voted against the impeachment of Clinton. Yes, it was a partisan vote. However, had more people been looking at the truly significant issues involved, it would have been a lot less partisan - but not because of the Republicans. As for a vote for mere censure, for all intents and purposes, Clinton has already been censured. He has been censured by the American public - over and over again. Isn't that why he has apologized five times? At this point, what possible difference could an official slap on the wrist make?

Now, understand that I am no conservative and no puritan. What Mr. Clinton actually did with whom he actually did it is simply none of my business. What I do consider my business is the fact that he has lied - and continues to lie - about it. Why? Because it affects my world and the world of my children.

Mr. Clinton has had a multitude of opportunities to come clean, and he still refuses to. Commentators say that a confession of perjury can have legal consequences for him in the future. Should that be a reason to continue in a lie? Isn't that an awfully small consideration in light of the cosmic implications that are in play? It would not be acceptable were he a mere private citizen. As a major influence on our society both today and for the future, it becomes that much less acceptable.
Mr. Clinton continues to insist that he has not lied, that it is all a question of definitions. We speak the same language, or we don't. We use words to communicate, not to equivocate. Language cannot be used to fool people without making someone a fool. Unfortunately for Mr. Clinton, he seems to have become his own worst enemy, his own victim. At best, he stands as a tragic hero whose own tragic flaw has done him in.

From my vantage point in Mexico City, I observe Americans, over CBS and CNN, looking for an expedient solution. Let's not waste time on a trial in the Senate, they say, as they seek a quick fix. Are they blind to where quick fixes have taken the world?

I teach, and I see it every day. Materialism rules our world. To make the money, you have to get the job. To get the job, you have to get into the selective university. To make it into the university, you need the grades - and to get the grades, you have to cheat. "El que no tranza no avanza (he who does not cheat does not get ahead)," some of my students say. Corrupt 16-year-olds do not make for a pretty picture, but that is the logical result of today's skewed priorities. Two-thirds of all American high school students say they cheat on tests. That is where the quick fix has taken us. But is that where we want to be?

Here in Mexico, and pretty much the rest of the world, people cannot understand why the sex thing is such a big thing. It is not the sex thing. It is the lack of honesty and the lack of honor. What signal does Mr. Clinton's behavior send to the younger generation? Do whatever you want; just be careful not to get caught?
Immanuel Kant, the nineteenth-century, German philosopher devised an interesting test for moral values: If whatever the infraction is is OK for you to do, then it should be OK for every one else to do, too. Thus, if it is OK for me to kill, then it is OK for everyone to kill. If it is OK for me to steal, then it is OK for everyone to steal. If it is OK for me to lie, then it is OK for everyone to lie.

Is it?

Do Americans really want to send that signal to their children? Do they really want to trade off basic human values in the name of expediency, in the name of passing a spending bill or a new speed limit? Without a basic sense of honor, is the rest of it worth it? Or am I being old-fashioned?

Many say that all of this happened because the Republicans were out to destroy Clinton in any way they could. That is a possibility. However, if Mr. Clinton was so sure that they were out to get him, why did he let himself get got? At best, he was guilty of stupidity. But was it stupidity, or was it arrogance? Was it was impunity? Was it a belief that he was smarter than the whole world - and, therefore, that he was above the law and that no one could touch him?

Here in Mexico, President Zedillo speaks out constantly about doing away with impunity. Mr. Clinton has acted with impunity and arrogance. This is not acceptable. So long as people in power believe that they can do whatever they want with impunity, so long as they believe that they are above the law, so long as public servants act like the publicly served, a society cannot work.
Americans set very high standards for the rest of the world. Can they permit their own country to violate those very standards?

Neither should they be depressed at the thought of the impeachment or Senate trial process. Rather, they should rejoice that such a serious step can be carried out in a logical, peaceful way. What are the other options? Dictatorship? Coup d'etat? Revolution? Isn't that the way much of the rest of the world "corrects" it political errors?