Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 2, 1994 TAG: 9401260001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Geoff Seamans
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Two Arkansas state troopers with a grudge (apparently because Clinton didn't make improper job offers) and a record of lying aren't my idea of credible sources regarding Clinton's "character." Nor do I put much stock in something so vague as a "sense that something is amiss."
In terms of Old Testament ethics, you could say the question boils down to which of the Ten Commandments is being violated. The Seventh, with its injunction against adultery? Or the Ninth, whose injunction against bearing false witness could be construed to encompass not only outright lying but also malicious embroidery of the truth and the telling of damaging tales with utter unconcern for their truthfulness.
In terms of the ethics of the civic arena, the conventional view would h old that violating the Ninth is a greater transgression, because it is a "public" sin as opposed to the "privete" sin of adultery.
I suppose I'd go along with that. But as I think back on recent presidents, I'm not sure how much either private-life morality or public-life rectitude bears on the quality of official performance.
My personal scorecard is, of course, open to debate and revision. But it may offer a way to think about character and performance.
\ George Bush.
Private morality: B. As a committed family man, Bush does well in this category. But he, being a family man, also loses a few points for failing to keep an apparently naive adult son away from S&L troubles.
Public principles: D. Principles, what principles? Budget-balancer or supply-sider, pro-choicer or pro-lifer, high-church Episcopal or low-church evangelical ... it all depended on the political calculation of the moment. On the other hand, he had to have been right half the time.
Performance: C, tentatively. In his supposed strong suit, foreign policy, Bush in retrospect is starting to look worse; in his supposed weak suit, economic issues, he's beginning to look better.
\ Ronald Reagan.
Private morality: C. No nasty private-life scandals, and the charge of hypocrisy (family-values rhetoric vs. his own dysfunctional family; religious rhetoric vs. lack of interest in his own church) is hard to support against a man so cheerfully oblivious to irony and paradox. Still, how can comfort-the-comfortable be deemed a satisfactory moral code?
Public principles: A. Inconsistency of principles (anti-regulation yet anti-abortion, pro-balanced budget yet anti-tax and pro-defense spending) belies a weak intellect, not the sincerity of Reagan's commitment to them.
Performance: B, tentatively. Upside of the Reagan years (inflation control, prosperity for many, collapse of European communism) continues to outweigh the downside (expansion of poverty, massive public debt, higher-than-average corruption level within administration) - though Reagan's reputation, unlike that of most presidents, may decline as time passes.
\ Jimmy Carter.
Private morality: A. Carter both thought about and tried to follow a deeply held personal ethic. Like Bush, a family man - but in the nuclear-family paradigm, pecadilloes of an adult brother don't count for as much as those of an adult son.
Public principles: A. What seemed sanctimonious at the time now seems to have been genuine, if slightly deluded. Incorruptible.
Performance: D. Carter's a superb ex-president, but stress the "ex." Top achievement: Camp David. But lest we forget: Stagflation ... gas-station lines ... hostages ... malaise ...
\ Gerald Ford.
Private morality: Incomplete.
Public principles: Incomplete.
Performance: Incomplete.
\ Richard Nixon.
Private morality: F. As a guiding moral force, resentment doesn't cut it.
Public principles: F. As a guiding public principle, resentment is worse than no principles. (See Bush.)
Performance: D. Nixon's achievements are swamped by Watergate, his assault on constitutional government. In Nixon's case, in other words, private morality and public principles - or, more precisely, lack thereof - indeed had a major influence on official performance.
For other recent presidents, though, the links are not at all clear. The situation calls for more study, and a federal grant.
by CNB