Old Brown Shoe

Even as we continue to strive to be like France, we still cling to some of the old American taboos inherent in a stubborn streak of our puritan tradition. To be sure, Bill Clinton’s dalliances were a game changer. Although we would never - now 15 some odd years later - think of impeaching a man (or woman) for casual private affairs, we’re still not comfortable with it. I have previously (on this blog) enumerated the consequences of the Monica Lewinsky affair and defended my contention that it was precisely this - not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - that, in a real sense, brought us to where we are today.

In order to maintain any semblance of old brown shoe prudishness (which seems to compliment our unctuous leanings), we’ve had to introduce money into the equation. New Jersey governors Corzine and McGreevey as well as New York’s Elliott Spitzer all fell under this sword. Corzine was said to have had improper dealings with the someone in a public sector union; McGreevey was said to have given a plum job to a lover; and Spitzer was said to have paid actual money (God forbid!) to the madam of high-end call girls. It is no wonder that the Hurd affair is now couched in similar terms.

Only someone of such immense political stature as Bill Clinton could get by and change the game once again, removing even the last remaining vestige of fig leaf with regard to the sex trade.

Admittedly, the whole notion is preposterous, especially in the face of all our other problems. It is infinitely more palatable than looking a train wreck straight in the face, especially while standing on the same track. Guilt weakens; and, as such, renders a powerful man vulnerable. Still, it would allow him at least some space in which to squirm. A good lawyer can always find enough wiggle room for the perp to slip the cuffs. A train wreck, on the other hand, spells closure. The paints are dry; the brushes broken. Nothing can be done anymore to alter even a single brushstroke of the finished dystopian masterpiece once it has been released for public endurance.

Lemmings?

I remember back in 2008, Republicans campaigning for office asked Bush to stay away. They did not want to be seen with him. And he understood the political realities and did not impose himself.

This past election cycle, anemic an indicator (of anything) as it was, Obama was asked to appear with both Democrat gubernatorial incumbents. He was said to be the man of ‘hope and change’, after all; the man of the hour; of destiny; the Messiah; the man with the big mo, whose multi-colored, socialist mop could confidently sweep away any and all messes.

It didn't work. I know Obama came several times to embrace Corzine publicly and cause massive traffic disruptions in this, my beloved, hugely blue state. If a presidential visit or two works anywhere, it should have worked here.

There is perhaps a parallel that can be drawn here (between ‘W’ and Obama). I’m just not quite sure of how to articulate it.

Cynics will try to put the onus on a fickle and confused electorate. They would argue that, given, the people went wholesale for anything ‘not Bush’ during the last election cycle, is it then so difficult to believe that those same lemming-like clods would not also veer severely to the Right on the mere suggestion of talk radio blather? Or is it, perhaps, the executive branch itself that has become toxic; a sacrificial stone for any president?

Linking the anti-Bush and the anti-Obama sentiment in this way, however, lacks nuance. Anti-Bush was manufactured fun spun from whole cloth by nihilists, stand-up comics, propagandists and spoilers. Anti-Obama sentiment, on the other hand, spawns from a genuine fear that America is headed for the proverbial cliff. It is infinitely more potent than the care-free jabs at Republican governance over the office water cooler. There will be a bloodbath next year.