Free High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton by Ann Coulter Page B

quite unlike members of Congress, who would carry their local “prepossessions” or biases with them, as James Madison said in Federalist No. 46. 3 When the president has an impaired sense of duty and obligation to the nation, and absolutely no “regard to [his] reputation,” the infirmity would naturally be expected to infect the entire country.
    Instead of reflecting Americans’ virtues and aspirations, President Clinton reflects the country’s dark side. He has debased the White House, the administration, and the entire country, not only by what he has done but also by how he has defended himself. Nixon was almost impeached in part for lying to the American people and for engaging his White House intimates in a pageant of obfuscation. Clinton has done worse than lie: he has told lies that no one can believe, and forced those around him to lie as well. And then he and his cronies have denied not only the facts but even basic standards of decency.
    Nixon eventually resigned in shame; Clinton’s legacy is that he has no shame, no sense of duty or obligation to the country, and no concern for his own reputation. O.J. is the model for Clinton’s second term. He has no alibi, no story whatsoever, and he has left a trail of DNA across a string of Jane Does. He just says he didn’t do it and refuses to explain anything further.
    In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have to have a national debate about whether he “did it,” even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate. Or the relative merits of the terms “scumbag” and “pervert.” No one believes he’s not guilty, except the usual 30 percent of people who remain willfully ignorant on every subject.
    Clinton’s shameless refusal to leave office voluntarily has led directly to monstrous “factions” of hypnotized zombies spouting the absurd. Like a cancer, his own lack of integrity has infected the nation. By refusing to go gracefully—as gracefully as is possible under the circumstances—he has dragged the whole country into a public debate about the indefensible. “Parties more or less friendly… to the accused” are forced into taking absurd positions. People who used to say controversial, but not preposterous, things are now having to twist themselves into pretzels to defend him. The line of defense shifts away from protests that the president is innocent to charges that the accusers have bad motives. (Even if their accusations happen to be true.) The cost of not impeaching him is to see Clintonesque arguments become standard political dialectic.
    More is at stake than how we define fitness for office: it’s how we define politics. Or, finally, how we define truth. There has always been a certain amount of disingenuousness in politics, but now that’s all there is. Ruthless political gamesmanship has overtaken the law and finally overtaken the truth. Politicians are allowed to reshape our understanding of facts and truth, because it’s all just political spin.
    Clinton draws on every sick theme of our culture to win politically. He has such mastery of popular psychoses, he could be Jerry Springer. Under Clinton the country has grown accustomed to believing that there is no truth. Deconstruction has escaped from the twilight zone of the Ivy League and taken hold of our political life. Truth is political. Law is political. The law is a hook that you use, but, really, it’s all about your feelings. Motives are the only things that exist, the only things that can be discussed. Paula Jones has a bad motive, Ken Starr has a bad motive, so the truth is secondary. Half the country is perfectly comfortable with the idea that since Starr is out to “get” Clinton, it doesn’t matter that Clinton’s guilty.
    This obsession with “motives” is repeated by Clinton’s flacks— Starr is out to get the president; it’s just about sex; he’s spent $40 million . Instead