I think we have to go back to Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation in order to gain some perspective on the controversies that defined Nixon’s presidency and how that influenced the political atmosphere henceforth. I believe there is a lot to learn from our past, because the two-party polarization we see now has always been a part of American politics to some degree. But in recent times, it has been magnified and strengthened by social media and a relentless press, and at present, is simply out of control.
I was a teenager when the Watergate scandal unfolded. I sat
and watched the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973 together with my father, who
was at home on sick leave at the time. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached
for his role in the Watergate scandal. The Republican president Gerald Ford
pardoned him in 1974, a pardon that was quite controversial; Ford justified the
pardon by saying that he did not want to subject the USA to a trial that would only
have further polarized the American people, who had already endured the
Watergate hearings. After Ford came Democrat Jimmy Carter, who served only one presidential
term (1977-1981); he was a forward-thinking president when it came to energy
and conservation policies. He was followed by Republican Ronald Reagan who
served two presidential terms (1981-89); his oratory skills and charm served
him well, even though he was sometimes considered a lightweight because he had
formerly been an actor. His economic policies--Reaganomics--introduced
Americans to ‘supply-side (trickle-down)’ policies that supported decreases in
taxes for corporations in order to stimulate economic growth. The intent was
that corporations, since they would now ‘save money’, would use those savings
to create jobs and to benefit the rest of the economy ("trickle down"
theory). His economic policies were controversial. His foreign policies were rooted
in anti-Communism ideology and quite bold, especially his challenge to
Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Conservatives in both political parties
embraced him when it came to his economic policies; I have to wonder if this
was because he was a skilled orator and good communicator. I can remember
heated arguments among the people I know/knew about his presidency; I was not a
Reagan fan at the time, but when he challenged Gorbachev, my respect for him
increased quite a bit. After Reagan came Republican George H.W. Bush, who
served one term only (1989-1993); perhaps the most controversial decision he
made was to involve the USA in the Gulf War. But his presidency did play a
major role in the reunification of Germany. Bill Clinton became Democratic president
in 1993 and served two presidential terms (1993-2001); while he enjoyed high
approval ratings for his economic policies and his attempts to broker peace
deals as part of his foreign policies, he was impeached in 1998 by the House of
Representatives (but not by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice when
he lied to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He did complete his second
term in office. The Lewinsky affair overshadows most of what otherwise occurred
during his presidential terms. Clinton was followed by Republican George W. Bush
who also served two terms (2001-2008); some of Bush’s most controversial actions would
have to be the invasion of Iraq in the futile search for weapons of mass destruction
(that were never found), and his handling of Hurricane Katrina. He was followed
by Democrat Barack Obama who served two presidential terms (2008-2016); perhaps
his most controversial policies are ‘Obamacare’ (the Affordable Care Act) that a
number of my friends were opposed to since they were afraid of losing their
private health insurance policies, and his support for same-sex marriage and
gun control. While I do not think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was not
of his doing; the Norwegian Nobel peace prize committee nominated him for the
prize. I don’t know if anyone has ever turned down the prize before. His
presidency was responsible for the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, who
orchestrated the attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001. ‘Republican’ Donald
Trump became president in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton; she won the popular
vote but he won the Electoral College. It was not an optimal start for his
presidency, which has been riddled with controversy since day one.
I bring up this timeline of the presidencies (with help from Wikipedia) in order to
make the point that something went majorly wrong in American politics during
the Clinton presidency in terms of the rise of (morally scrupulous) fanaticism. One has to wonder about the underlying reason. It is hard to fathom
just how ridiculous the Clinton impeachment, which was televised in 1998,
looked to the rest of the world. It is hard for me to fathom how it gained the
momentum it did. Internet was still in its infancy, and social media did not
exist. Had it existed, it would have been even more unbearable for all
involved. My husband’s father (Norwegian) labelled it a farce from day one. You’ve
got to wonder what happened to the minds of intelligent people who essentially
impeached Clinton for lying about a sexual affair he had with a young woman
working in the White House. His lying about it pales in comparison to the
current occupant of the White House, who lies about
most things, forces others to lie for him, spouts fake news and demands that his
followers buy it and be loyal to him. While I don’t condone Clinton’s infidelity,
the infidelity itself was a private matter for him and his wife to deal with.
If Hillary wanted to remain with him; that was her choice, and ultimately it was her choice. The actual impeachment
proceedings were a joke; when you look at them now your first instinct is to
cringe. And I can imagine the rest of the world cringed as well, for how it
embarrassed the USA. Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s role in the entire sordid
mess, Linda Tripp’s betrayal of Monica Lewinsky--taping the conversations
Lewinsky had with her and turning them over to Ken Starr (who was already
investigating the Whitewater scandal that involved the Clintons), bringing in a
blue dress with semen stains on it in order to further the case. Starr was obsessed
with taking down Bill Clinton, with destroying him personally, and you’ve got to ask the question--WHY? He
managed to humiliate Clinton and Lewinsky; Lewinsky found herself nearly unable
to live down her affair and have a life afterward, and it didn’t help that
Clinton never apologized to her for essentially misusing his position and
taking advantage of her. Yes, she could have said no and should have said no.
But she didn’t. However, she didn’t deserve the life that ensued following the
revelation of the affair. But Starr managed something else--he managed to
humiliate himself and to ensure that his legacy will be the story of a fanatical
man obsessed with personally destroying Clinton. At least that’s how I see it,
and I’m no historian or political scientist.
If one behaves like Ken Starr did toward Clinton, one must
expect repercussions in the political arena for years to come. Tit for tat.
Revenge politics. There are many Democrats who never forgot how Clinton was
treated and humiliated, and how the USA was humiliated on the world stage. For a country that prides itself on ‘separation of church and
state’, it certainly seemed as though the ‘tar and feather’ brand of religion
(religious zealots) had overtaken the government, aided and certainly abetted
by the evangelical movement, most of whom seem to be greedy charlatans. The moral finger
pointing had started. Some few people decided that they had the moral qualifications
to decide how others should behave. Christ would probably have called them Pharisees.
During the two Bush administrations, there was partisanship,
criticism, bitter disagreements, and controversy. But Bush junior was never
treated the way Bill Clinton was treated. He was faithful to his
wife and honest about having had an alcohol problem when he was younger, so the
Democrats and the press couldn’t exactly accuse him of immorality. Both the
Democrats and Republicans criticized him for his handling of Hurricane Katrina as well as for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But he had to contend, like the rest of the USA, with the 9/11 attacks. There
was no time for frivolous attacks/attempts to destroy a man’s life and
character when the country was united against an external enemy.
Trump started the fanaticism ball rolling again when he
questioned whether or not Obama was born in the USA (the Obama birtherism
conspiracy theory). He did this long before he even became president. He pushed this fake news story for all it was worth. He
played the public humiliation game--let’s humiliate Obama--a game he was
already quite skilled at from his earlier dealings with NYC politicians, his
own family, and other businesspeople. It’s his favoured technique for inciting the
masses and gaining loyal followers. In this case, followers who are white
supremacists, racists, would-be racists, and those who simply were looking for
a bully pulpit to speak for them. He forced Obama to produce his birth certificate
to confirm that he was born in the USA. Trump’s alliance with the Republican Party
meant that the Democrats had to fight against a man who revelled in being a
pathological liar, pusher of fake news, and an inciter of many forms of bad behaviour,
right from the start. When you start off by personally attacking your opponent,
you know exactly what you are doing. You are taking the low road, and defining
for your followers the road they are to take as well. The low road enables the
disenfranchised, the downtrodden, the bullies, and the underbelly of society,
to come out into the open. And they did, in droves. What we see at present is
the culmination of years of drinking at the poison well by Trump’s followers--a
well that provided a steady intake of fake news, conspiracy theories, white supremacist ideology, fanaticism (aided and abetted by evangelical charlatans), Christian churches
that refused to stand up against him, an alt-right and conservative press that
lapped up his every word and that enabled him. While Trump can often come
across as rather stupid, he was intelligent enough to know exactly what he was doing during these past four years. He
exploited the polarization in American politics for all it was worth, for his
own ends. ‘Divide and conquer’ is a tried and true technique used by despots to
gain power and to keep it. He may not be responsible for the huge chasm that exists between liberals and conservatives, but he certainly exploited it with his outrageousness and lack of boundaries. The Democrats may have fed into this narrative by going after
Trump and the Republicans with claws out and fangs bared, to destroy them as
they felt the Republicans had tried to destroy Clinton. It’s definitely a real
possibility that some of them think and feel this way; I cannot help but think that their hatred of Trump is a response to how Republicans treated
Clinton. Perhaps for some, these past four years have been payback time. But
payback comes at a high price--the ripping apart of America.
And here we are, in January 2021, wondering whether or not Biden, who is trying to take the high road and to focus on the crucial issues at hand, will succeed. Washington DC is an armed camp, tensions are running high, and violence is expected. One hopes that there will not be more deaths. You can ask whether all of this enmity is worth it, but you’re not likely to get a rational answer from anyone. The situation is out of control, and everyone knows it.
