RACHEL JOHNSON
Perspectives Assistant
With the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, many conservative activists became undying allies against his administration and its perceived forceful liberal platform. Trust had been violated, morals had been disregarded, and many felt Clinton’s actions indicated that all Democrats cheapened the value of the law.
Ironically, after a senior White House aide was indicted, many Republicans now place less value on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It’s simply not as big of a deal as it used to be.
Before I go on, the point of this piece is not to condemn one party or another. Rather, it should serve to illustrate that morals, especially in politics, need to be kept constant. Values should not depend on circumstance.
Friday’s indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, coupled with the continual investigation of President Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, is making it challenging for Republicans to believe that Democrats are the only individuals who devalue the rule of law.
After Libby’s indictment, the Bush administration went into full force in search of loopholes that could prove the claims against him were unwarranted. The charges made against Libby were one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of the slip of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name. His defenders focused on the fact that indictment only accuses him of lying to reporters about her identity in 2003. The charge does not, however, blame him of breaching national security laws.
In an opinion piece written Oct. 30 in the Chicago Tribune, Clarence Page discusses the casual comments Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R – Texas) made Sunday concerning perjury in her appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” When talking about Libby’s indictment, Hutchison said that “it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality.” Her use of the word “technicality” implies a newly acquired conservative view on political values, according to Page.
“Funny how Hutchison and her fellow Republican senators took ‘some perjury technicality’ a lot more seriously when they tried former President Bill Clinton for it,” Page wrote, “a charge of which he was acquitted with the help of some Republicans.”
Though Page goes on to make his case a very liberal one, he makes a strong argument. Why is it that when their opposition was in trouble, the Republicans were the moral police? Now, when the reputation of one of their own is at stake, grand issues of controversy magically become mere technicalities.
Surely some pre-Clinton Democrats were in the same places Republicans are now. There have been instances in the careers of former Republican presidents that caused Democrats to wave their fists and declare them immoral. The Watergate scandal during Nixon’s presidency was unquestionably one of those times.
It seems, then, that both parties understand what it’s like when a public figure associated with their group violates the law. Both have been placed in situations where society is forced to question party values.
It’s time for government officials to clarify the morals of political parties. These values cannot change depending on circumstance. They cannot change to accommodate mistakes made by prominent figures within the party. They cannot change to either boost their character or devalue the opposition’s image. Consistency is essential, not only in providing for a more ethical political forum, but for the good of society as well.
11-03-2005