I began with a process analysis question: How did President Clinton deal with the situation once he was found out?

There's a simple answer to this question. He tried to evade responsibility for his actions. But this answer suggests another process question: How did he try to evade responsibility for his actions? As best as I can see, he:

1. Attacked the character of the women involved by saying they were lying.
2. Attacked the character of the women involved by saying they were known for sexual misconduct themselves, even though this information was irrelevant to our judgment of his actions.
3. Asked other personal friends and professional associates (like Betty Curry) to lie to back him up.
4. Lied to personal friends and professional associates (like press secretaries) when they did not know the full truth themselves, insuring their public humiliation when these lies were eventually exposed.

 

5. Argued about definitions of precise terms (for example, "sex" and "perjury") once evidence of wrongdoing was established, suggesting that the technical nature of the wrongdoing was more important than the fact that it was wrong.
6. Argued that he was not in control of his actions due to a form of personality disorder or mental illness (sex addiction).
7. Prayed, or at least invited ministers to the White House to help him get through this personal crisis.

Now that we've used process analysis to talk about how he responded AFTER the beans were spilled, let's note which ones of these processes must have been in place before the disclosure in case disclosure should occur. As we do so, we'll note which of these contingencies should logically have been part of the thinking of any president who risked being caught in this position. Then we'll go on to look at what Clinton's process of dealing with disclosure shows us about his cause/effect reasoning before, during, and after disclosure. Would other presidents who took such risks probably have been thinking in similarly distorted patterns? Why or why not?

What elements of process must have been in place in his thinking all along, even before he was caught?

He must have been prepared to cut off contact with the woman in question, and he must have had some idea what he would say about the relationship if asked. (Presumably this would apply to FDR, Dwight E., and JFK as well.)

He must have had some idea what he would ask the woman to say about the relationship if she were asked by others. (Presumably this would apply to FDR, Dwight E., and JFK as well.)

He must have been unable to conceal all of his acts from at least some close personnel, such as the Secret Service, who must know where the president is at all times. Therefore these people must also have understood that they were expected to conceal his transgressions from the public. (Presumably this would apply to FDR, Dwight E., and JFK at least as much if not moreso, since their presidencies occurred while the nation was at war, whereas Clinton's did not.)

He must have asked himself why he was doing what he was doing and whether or not it was wrong and why. This is shown also by certain details of Clinton's conduct. For example, he asked Betty Curry to conceal information about personal gifts and contacts, suggesting that he knew these gifts would be regarded as improper. Also, during White House liasons with Lewinsky, he allowed sexual favors to be performed for him but did not perform them for her. This suggests that he was toying with the technical definition of "sex" in his mind at the time, long before he was asked about it in public. (It's hard to say whether this would have applied to the others, especially to Dwight E. and FDR, who may have been unable to imagine that anyone other than the Secret Service and their own wives would ever know the truth. In this case, it means that the earlier presidents may have had more respect for their mistresses than Clinton had for his. They may have expected these mistresses to lie in public if they ever had to, but to know in private that they were regarded with love and respect. In contrast, Clinton clearly reached a point when he didn't care if any of his mistresses regarded themselves with respect, since he spoke of them with open contempt.)

The last two things Clinton did to deal with discosure were probably not anticipated by him or by anyone prior to the disclosure. That is, he probably didn't imagine that he'd fall back on the "sex addiction" excuse or that he'd resort to public prayer. The first of these two ideas was clearly a bad one anyway. Why should America want a president who's mentally or emotionally disturbed? Yet surely sex addiction is an emotional disturbance. What else would it be?

That brings us to the second issue. We were going to investigate what Clinton's thought processes after disclosure tell us about his cause/effect reasoning all along. What they tell us is that his reasoning about what he was doing was profoundly screwed up long before anyone caught him. At very least we know that:

1. He didn't know WHY the American people would object to him having an affair. (Otherwise, he wouldn't have told a lie under oath that hinged on the technical definition of "sex." He would have known that people cared about whether what he did was WRONG, not about whether it was sex.)
2. He couldn't imagine in advance that people would be more upset about the lying than about the sex itself.
3. It didn't occur to him that anyone would sympathize with the women.
4. He couldn't imagine what was wrong with the "sex addiction" excuse; namely, that it suggests a sitting president had a serious mental illness that made him unable to either control his actions or recognize right from wrong in his dealings with other human beings.
5. It didn't occur to him that he might not be able to attract advisors and consultants after humiliating half the people who had ever trusted him.
6. He didn't consider resigning rather than being impeached, even though his resignation would have brought Al Gore into this election in a much stronger position as a sitting Democratic president, and would therefore have done more to bolster his party and his principles (?) than fighting the impeachment did.

You can make a case that these are some faily serious lapses in judgment. You can also make a case that they affect issues other than his sexual conduct, and that they reveal multiple character flaws that impact a wide range of relationships. Use comparison or analogy to consider questions such as these:

Would a "sex addict" president be able to resist a sexy alien spy who asked for national secrets? Or would he appoint a beautiful woman rather than a capable man to be, say, Attorney General or Secretary of State? (No aspersions are meant to be cast on Janet Reno or Madeleine Allbright, who have little in common with either Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky.)

Would a president who casually discarded friends and assistants be worthy of having friends and assistants? What kinds of friends and assistants would he have? Would he be able to engage in the kind of honest communication with them that clear policy decisions require?

Would a man who made false promises to his wife and to a long string of mistresses make false promises about policy to the public as well?

Would a man who thought of lovers with contempt think of people who voted for him with contempt? What are the implications for his policies?

Shouldn't a president care more about his party, platform, and principles than he does about his personal access to power?

What other than his own reputation actually matters to this man? Do we want a president who cares about nothing other than his own reputation?

Is there anything he wouldn't say in order to evade responsibility for a mistake? And by the way, do we want presidents who seek only to evade rather than to admit responsibility for mistakes?

Bill Clinton never apologised publickly to any of the women he hurt, not even to his wife and daughter. (Actually, he apparently saw the people who revealed his wrongdoing as the only ones who hurt his wife and daughter.) What does this tell us about his capacity for contrition or even for modesty? Do we want a president who lacks those capacities?

Many presidents are remembered for a saying or line they used often while in office. President Bush, for example, was remembered for "Read my lips." President Kennedy was remembered for "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." President Clinton will be remembered for two lines. One, unfortunately, is "I did not have sex with that woman." The other is "I feel your pain." Our line of reasoning suggests that the second line was always as insincere as the first. What are the implications?

But enough about Bill. What about Dwight, Franklin, and John? Clearly we need not say all the bad things about them that we did about him. Using comparison and contrast, what must we say and what need we not say of them? Opinions can vary, of course. This is what occurs to me now.

All of them had some problems with personal loyalty.

All of them contributed to the disillusionment and corruption of members of the secret service, and possibly of others in government.

All of them felt that female friendships belonged in a separate category from male friendships. Almost certainly, they all accepted the famous "double standard" that men--especially powerful men--are permitted indiscretions that are not permissible for most women.

By logical extension, all of these men accepted the existence of a heirarchy of power and privilege, believing that some male individuals of high status and power are allowed certain foibles that might not be tolerated in others.

Even though they had less reason to believe thay'd be discovered, all were willing to tolerate a small risk that they would undermine their presidency and lose the nation's trust at a difficult time in the nation's history.

None lost a lot of sleep over the problems disclosure could create for loyal members of their Party who helped elect them, or for the pursuit of their Party's philosophy and policies. If they thought about these friendships and issues, the personal romance clearly mattered more.

With the possible exception of Kennedy, all of the other presidents were disloyal with only one other woman with whom they had a stable relationship that lasted for years.

Again with the possible exception of Kennedy, all of the other presidents were disloyal with someone who was an important friend and intellectual equal, and someone they had reason to trust.

All of these men commanded greater respect from both their mistresses and other associates than Clinton did. In other words, they probably seemed more like men whose dignity and privacy should be taken seriously.

All of them could count on a press corps and a general public that was less suspicious of them, less interested in their private affairs, or less generally hostile toward them than is the case today.

Remember what that question was. We wanted to know if and how presidential sexual misconduct might affect a president's ability to lead the nation--that is, his policies or character--even if he were never caught.

We'd probably begin by debunking some myths. To do that, we'd go first to our list of differences and/or to our long and particular (spectacular?) list of problems with Bill Clinton's cause/effect reasoning in his specific situation. We'd want to be clear how many of these serious character flaws might NOT have applied to all of the previous presidents in a somewhat similar situation.

Then we'd use cause/effect reasoning to consider some remaining questions. I don't know how many you'd ask, but I'd ask at least the following three questions.

1. How might these presidents' policies towards issues of women's rights have been affected by their personal relationships? Would they be more or less likely to support abortion? More or less likely to support equal pay for equal work? More or less likely to vote with women on issues affecting the rights and welfare of children, especially in situations involving divorce?
2. Assuming that women are somewhat disenfranchised minorities, what does the belief these men shared in the double standard for sexual relationships say about their acceptance of other double standards--say, those based on race, religion, or age? Do they seem more or less likely to have believed in a "ruling class"?
3. How might their personal friendships with other heads of states have been affected by their tolerance of duplicitousness or disloyalty in marriage--since after all, a marriage is a kind of political alliance?

To answer those questions, I might draw on my personal experience. (I might, but I'm not sure how, since I've never cheated on my husband.) I might draw on my knowledge of history. (Anyone who believes romance never interferes with political issues has never heard of a British fellow named Henry VIII.) I might draw on my knowledge of literature. (Read Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. There's a reason why it's the second most popular book ever written.)

Or I might draw on nothing but the powers of my own common sense. How could I use the patterns of development to tell me how the behavior of these men might have affected--or been affected by--their ideals and beliefs?

This has been a rather lengthy and convoluted comparison of adultery in earlier presidents to Clinton's adultery to discover what we can learn in each case about presidential character. But maybe I shouldn't have started with a comparison strategy, or maybe the comparison should have started with the earlier presidents first instead of Clinton first. It's so easy to critique Clinton that by starting with him, we may risk missing the significance adultery would have even in a less conspicuous case.

Here's what occurs to me now. We know one thing about any president who has committed adultery while in office, whether he did so in the past or in the present, or for that matter whether he does so in the foreseeable future. We know this by virtue of a straightforward cause/effect analysis.

We know that he's comfortable lying to the public about some aspects of his personal relationships and his moral values. Moreover, we know that he goes into office planning to do this, and plans his presidency around this needed convenience. (Well, at least we know he doesn't consider it necessary to resign when he starts lying about his moral values and relationships.) From this logic it must also follow that he accepts this kind of lying to the public as an indispensable perogative of power for a powerful man.

Using analogy, we can ask what other relationships might be concealed by a man who accepts this kind of lying as a normal strategy for protecting his reputation. Excuse me for falling back on Clinton again, but it's a little known fact that while the entire world was blasting him for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he was also lying at the very same time about his relationship with Saddam Hussein (though few people noticed).

At this time Clinton maintained a public posture of intolerance of Saddam's eviction of UN chemical weapons' inspectors. But he secretly instructed Madeleine Allbright's diplomats to let Saddam know we'd look the other way and let the matter drop, since we weren't prepared to take military action. (That would have affected his approval ratings, after all.)

His reasoning was somewhat the same, too. He denied what he was doing with Monica because he thought a sitting president couldn't afford to look sleazy and disloyal to his family. He denied what he was doing with Saddam because he thought a sitting president couldn't afford to look weak or cowardly. In both cases, he apparently valued his approval ratings more than the truth. Even more, he thought that America should value a sitting president's approval ratings more than the truth, because the administration's approval ratings are more important to national security.

Moreover, none of this was done covertly. The story was reported on the front page of the Washington Post. And the TV show Saturday Night Live did a comedy sketch loosely based on it, too. (This involved a three-way phone conversation about "keeping the public guessing" among Clinton and Lewinsky and Hussein.)

I leave it to you to sort out the implications. And while you're at it, here's another question: What are the implications for democracy as a form of government?