EDITORIAL & OPINION — Easier to destroy than to build — Tuning out

Politics has always been a blood sport, but it has been painful in this year of global economic crisis to watch some American politicians focus on little else than their obsession to remove President William Jefferson Clinton from office.

At the risk of offending our American readers, many of whom support the Republican Party, and acknowledging that it really is none of our business, we confess that many Canadians are bewildered by the process that has delivered President Clinton to his impeachment Waterloo. And we’re not alone. Politicians the world over, including Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Germany’s dour Helmut Kohl, have wondered out loud how the world’s greatest nation could become almost paralyzed by, well, a soap opera.

Clinton’s critics, of course, argue that it is about much more than sex and that if Clinton’s lies are tolerated, “the integrity of this country’s judicial process is fatally compromised, and that process will inevitably collapse.”

But it now looks as though many Americans feel the entire process has been compromised by bias and partisanship. Pollsters are finding that voters are disgusted all right, not only by Clinton’s conduct, but by the general character of American politics.

And who can blame them for tuning out after the roller-coaster ride of the past few years? Most Americans waited patiently, and with an open mind and chequebook, while Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr dug into Whitewatergate, Travelgate and Filegate. So far, nothing on all three counts. They listened to lectures from moral vigilantes predicting Clinton’s guilt and demise long before Starr delivered his report. But Clinton is still there. And, in poll after poll, Americans continue to give his performance high ratings, much to the chagrin of conservatives who had hoped for a ground swell of outrage.

Clinton’s support held even after Starr delivered his blistering, X-rated report. It appears many Americans prefer a strong but flawed executive, rather than some weak pillar of virtue. Say what you like about Bill Clinton — that he’s sleazy and slippery and insincere — but one thing is clear: many Americans appear to have a genuine affection for the man, warts and all. They’ve adopted him as their prodigal son.

Starr, on the other hand, is increasingly viewed as the Joseph McCarthy of the 1990s. He has taken public lumps for not informing Attorney-General Janet Reno that he had consulted with, and provided a legal opinion for, lawyers working on the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case against the President. Clinton’s supporters argue that had Starr done so, Reno might not have allowed him to expand his original investigation (which was going nowhere) to include a probe of the President’s relations with various women.

All that is dirty water under the bridge, and most Americans want the matter dealt with fairly and quickly. But few expect anything to happen until after the November congressional elections.

Which raises the issue of the next presidential election, and how the Republican Party might fare in it. Poorly, we’d bet, unless the party is steered in a new direction — unless it articulates a new vision and shakes the narrow fundamentalism and elitism that have defined it in the past. Put simply, the Republican party needs to find its place in a new century, rather than remain a dinosaur of 1950s America. Finding a heart wouldn’t hurt either.

The Republican Party has many good people and is capable of great and noble ideas. For proof of this, one need not look further than Clinton’s own administration, which adopted many conservative policies and made them salable to the majority of Americans.

The Republican Party needs to shed its country-club image, be more progressive, and open a dialogue on more than reduced government and tax cuts. It needs to take its core message of traditional values and responsibility, build on it, humanize it, and deliver it to a broader range of constituents, including minorities. It needs to shape policy, rather than destroy someone else’s.