Clinton was overreaching. He seemed to be saying that private behavior is irrelevant to an assessment of character-a myopic view, as any voter (or novelist) knows. But as he spoke movingly about his commitment to public service, the crowd understood that he was on to something. Just bearing up so strongly under the media onslaught-that was a form of character, wasn’t it? And his concept of political character-using power to help people-had to be at least as important as peroxide blondes and Vietnam draft boards, right?
As the campaign gets nasty, the challenge for Clinton is to broaden the definition of character. If the Bush campaign and lazy-minded reporters are allowed to get away with using “character” simply as a code word for adultery and the draft, then the meaning of the term and Clinton himself are in trouble.
Assessing character is like eating soup with a fork. It’s like Justice Stewart’s definition of pornography-you know it when you see it. George Bush showed it in 1942 when he volunteered to risk his life fighting in the noble cause against fascism. A young Bill Clinton showed it in 1968 when he rushed into the Washington ghetto to pass out blankets to poor people burned out of their homes in the riots. The question is: what are their character records since?
Both are extremely loyal to old friends, honest in their financial dealings (the recent accusations against Clinton seem baseless) and run administrations that are cleaner than what came before. At the same time, each has given the voters cause to doubt his word. Bush probably knew more than he admitted about Iran-contra, and he deliberately misled the public about his attitude toward contacts with Chinese leaders after Tiananmen Square. Clinton probably knew Gennifer Flowers better than he admitted, and he could have been more candid this year about the relief he felt as a 23-year-old over being “saved” from the draft.
In the realm of political character-commitment, principle, guts-the judgments become more subjective but no less relevant. Bush has a problem here. Without blinking, he moved from pro-choice to pro-life on what is supposed to be an issue of conscience. He exploited race with Willie Horton. He was eager to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in American history (on flag burning) for the sake of brief political advantage. On taxes, Bush must have known in 1988 that his read-my-lips pledge was hollow and cynical. Perhaps worst of all, after winning the gulf war, he refused to expend any of his huge popularity on pushing a legislative agenda. That suggested a lack of deep belief in anything.
Actually, there are three things that George Bush seems to believe in deeply: personal loyalty (the key to his success in politics), resisting aggression abroad (his World War II enlistment, the gulf war) and the economic value of letting the wealthy keep more of their money (cutting the capital-gains tax has been a lifelong crusade). The shortness of that list should itself be a “character issue.”
Clinton’s character problem is a bit more complicated than Bush’s. The source of uneasiness about him is partly a result of his lack of directness–many voters ask why didn’t he ‘fess up more on “60 Minutes.” On issues, his answers are refreshingly detailed but not always straightforward. Why fudge so much? Like many baby boomers, Bill Clinton has always thought he could have it all: an escape from the draft and the respect of the ROTC colonel; a brilliant wife, a political career and other women; the support of poor liberals and rich conservatives (and vice versa); credit for backing anti-Iraq sanctions and the president’s war policy. Sometimes the calibrated position is right, sometimes it’s politically effective and sometimes it’s just plain slick.
To address his character issue, Clinton will have to provide direct, uncircular answers to questions. To address his, Bush will have to explain, finally, what he thinks power is for. That’s what campaigns are about. And that’s why the guy with the microphone in his hand should stop asking about the “character issue.” If he means adultery, he should say adultery. If he means shameless political expediency, he should say it. The irony is that while the politicians and the media persist with their narrow notion of character, the public instinctively feels its way through thousands of conflicting bits of information toward the broader, truer, more democratically useful definition.
title: “The Real Character Issues” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-09” author: “Andrew Triplett”
Clinton was overreaching. He seemed to be saying that private behavior is irrelevant to an assessment of character-a myopic view, as any voter (or novelist) knows. But as he spoke movingly about his commitment to public service, the crowd understood that he was on to something. Just bearing up so strongly under the media onslaught-that was a form of character, wasn’t it? And his concept of political character-using power to help people-had to be at least as important as peroxide blondes and Vietnam draft boards, right?
As the campaign gets nasty, the challenge for Clinton is to broaden the definition of character. If the Bush campaign and lazy-minded reporters are allowed to get away with using “character” simply as a code word for adultery and the draft, then the meaning of the term and Clinton himself are in trouble.
Assessing character is like eating soup with a fork. It’s like Justice Stewart’s definition of pornography-you know it when you see it. George Bush showed it in 1942 when he volunteered to risk his life fighting in the noble cause against fascism. A young Bill Clinton showed it in 1968 when he rushed into the Washington ghetto to pass out blankets to poor people burned out of their homes in the riots. The question is: what are their character records since?
Both are extremely loyal to old friends, honest in their financial dealings (the recent accusations against Clinton seem baseless) and run administrations that are cleaner than what came before. At the same time, each has given the voters cause to doubt his word. Bush probably knew more than he admitted about Iran-contra, and he deliberately misled the public about his attitude toward contacts with Chinese leaders after Tiananmen Square. Clinton probably knew Gennifer Flowers better than he admitted, and he could have been more candid this year about the relief he felt as a 23-year-old over being “saved” from the draft.
In the realm of political character-commitment, principle, guts-the judgments become more subjective but no less relevant. Bush has a problem here. Without blinking, he moved from pro-choice to pro-life on what is supposed to be an issue of conscience. He exploited race with Willie Horton. He was eager to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in American history (on flag burning) for the sake of brief political advantage. On taxes, Bush must have known in 1988 that his read-my-lips pledge was hollow and cynical. Perhaps worst of all, after winning the gulf war, he refused to expend any of his huge popularity on pushing a legislative agenda. That suggested a lack of deep belief in anything.
Actually, there are three things that George Bush seems to believe in deeply: personal loyalty (the key to his success in politics), resisting aggression abroad (his World War II enlistment, the gulf war) and the economic value of letting the wealthy keep more of their money (cutting the capital-gains tax has been a lifelong crusade). The shortness of that list should itself be a “character issue.”
Clinton’s character problem is a bit more complicated than Bush’s. The source of uneasiness about him is partly a result of his lack of directness–many voters ask why didn’t he ‘fess up more on “60 Minutes.” On issues, his answers are refreshingly detailed but not always straightforward. Why fudge so much? Like many baby boomers, Bill Clinton has always thought he could have it all: an escape from the draft and the respect of the ROTC colonel; a brilliant wife, a political career and other women; the support of poor liberals and rich conservatives (and vice versa); credit for backing anti-Iraq sanctions and the president’s war policy. Sometimes the calibrated position is right, sometimes it’s politically effective and sometimes it’s just plain slick.
To address his character issue, Clinton will have to provide direct, uncircular answers to questions. To address his, Bush will have to explain, finally, what he thinks power is for. That’s what campaigns are about. And that’s why the guy with the microphone in his hand should stop asking about the “character issue.” If he means adultery, he should say adultery. If he means shameless political expediency, he should say it. The irony is that while the politicians and the media persist with their narrow notion of character, the public instinctively feels its way through thousands of conflicting bits of information toward the broader, truer, more democratically useful definition.
