Column Clinton/Starr turmoil needs ethics of care
By JOAN CHITTISTER
One womans comment on the Internet seems to sum up
Americas position on Monicagate: I havent changed my mind
about Clinton, the posting reads. Bill Clinton is just one more
self-serving man. President Clinton, on the other hand, is a good
president.
The comment states the situation well, but it does not resolve the
big question: Is he really a good president? Is there a relationship
between public and private morality and, if so, what does it have to do with
being president of the United States?
Dont answer too quickly.
First, some clarifications. What happened between President
William Jefferson Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in dark halls of the White House
and the alcoves of the Oval Office was at best tawdry, sleazy and cheap. It
tarnished the man, lampooned the office and desecrated the place. It may be
forgiven, of course, but it cannot be justified.
Secondly, the character of Monica Lewinsky herself has very little
to do with the situation. Say what you want about her thong underwear, the
principle still is that the quality of any communication depends on the
character of the person in the higher position. If executives use sex as a tool
of hire, however willing the secretary, the ethical quality of the relationship
still rests in most part on the shoulders of the executive.
And if that executive is the president of the United States, who
is supposed to be able to control himself enough to make rational decisions
about the use of nuclear weapons, for instance, the loss of emotional control
in such an adolescent manner is even more critical. Clearly, Bill Clinton --
President Clinton -- has a great deal of soul-searching to do, a great deal of
responsibility to take.
At the same time, it is not really clear if any of it matters for
the country itself. What connection, if any, exists between public and private
morality? History provides little help in arriving at the answer. Alexander the
Great created an empire and died at an early age from the results of syphilis.
Roosevelt saved the country from depression, all the while supporting a
mistress. Richard Nixon was apparently a Puritan saint but came close to
destroying the democratic process.
Perhaps the even more difficult question is whether or not Kenneth
Starrs own sins -- specious evidence-gathering, information leaks and
pornographic reporting -- on behalf of public morality may not themselves be as
egregious as Clintons private personal flaws. For the first time in
history, a special prosecutor named to pursue one question of justice seems to
have made a professional career of investigating the president. Clinton has
been investigated for almost his entire term in office. Is this moral zeal,
professional dedication or political hounding? And is any of it relevant to
what it means to be president of the United States? It is a bizarre
situation.
Is Monicagate deplorable? Indeed it is. Is it scandalous? Without
doubt. Are the lies that surround it reasons for impeachment? In the day of
special prosecutors and in the light of times to come, the question may be a
crucial one. And yet, in some ways, it hardly matters. So much damage has
already been done that its hard to imagine that anything can save the
credibility of this president.
What this situation calls for, from a moral point of view, is a
clear distinction between what we can call an ethics of rights and
an ethics of care. An ethics of rights -- the making of judgments
on the basis of law -- will not necessarily determine what is really most
moral, most developmental of the whole spiritual fabric of the country. Only an
ethics of care, judgments made on the basis of our duty to each particular
individual in every specific instance, can do that.
First, Clinton himself must cease to assert only his rights and
neglecting to care about the impact of his actions. Then, we ourselves need to
care about Clinton as a person rather than simply seek a careless justice. We
must care about Monica Lewinsky as a young woman betrayed by the holder of the
highest office in the land. And we must care to preserve the best values of the
society itself, mercy as well as justice.
Maybe the countrys drift toward fascism in its desperate
attempt to punish sin is every bit as much a violation of rights, an
abandonment of care, as serious a problem as Clintons personal moral
pathologies. Maybe overlooking one problem in our fascination with the other
will, in the long light of history, turn out to be the most serious sleaze of
all.
Within an ethics of rights, Bill Clinton can continue to function
as an effective politician. His private behavior need not inhibit this process.
But it is only within an ethics of care that the aspirations of the republic
for moral leadership can be achieved. Being willing to acknowledge the
appropriateness of public censure and to seek forgiveness for his private
actions is the first step toward recognizing that.
An ethics of care is desirable, not only for good government, but
for good souls as well.
Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister, author and lecturer, lives in
Erie, Pa.
National Catholic Reporter, October 9,
1998
|