Column Clintons immorality not confined to sex life
By ROSEMARY RADFORD
RUETHER
In the late 1970s conservative
evangelicals came out of a long period of withdrawal from American public life
and began to organize politically. This re-politicization of conservative
Christians caught many liberals by surprise.
In the first half of the 80s Christian right groups, such as
the Christian Voice and Moral Majority, were on the ascendancy. They took
advantage of neglected sources of political power. They registered millions of
conservative Christians to vote, became active in local Republican Party
politics and organized lobbyists in Washington for their own agendas. They
became a political power to be reckoned with.
One major thesis of the religious right was an affinity between
immorality and liberal politics. During the 60s, the sexual revolution
and leftist politics in favor of civil rights and in opposition to the war in
Vietnam seemed to be linked. The Christian right concluded that a breakdown in
traditional American political values and traditional family values went
together. Those who wanted to curtail American military power for Third World
interventions and who sought prison reform, rights for women, gays and welfare
recipients were perceived to harbor a disrespect for hierarchy in family and
society. For the Christian right, the disintegration of the family and liberal
politics were cut from the same cloth.
One way the Christian right sought to establish
morality in public life was to issue moral report cards on members
of Congress. Those who supported liberal politics, were against apartheid in
South Africa, were against aid to the contras in Nicaragua, supported
reproductive choice and affirmative action and opposed prayer in schools were
given negative report cards, while those who supported the opposite policies
got high marks. The results were incongruous. Members of Congress of obvious
personal integrity such as Fr. Robert Drinan flunked morality,
while some with known records of sexual infidelity, alcoholism and financial
corruption scored high.
The new right of the 80s tied together two different forms
of conservatism that had not necessarily been linked before: right-wing
political and economic theory and religious conservatism. To believe in the
infallibility of the Bible and to be against feminism, gay rights and abortion
were linked to being for a strong military, opposing communism and advocating
tax cuts. This meant that a sincere evangelical like Jimmy Carter was
discounted as a Christian because his religious principles led him to liberal
politics, while a fiscal and military conservative like Ronald Reagan who did
not go to church and whose grasp of Christian principles was weak at best was
touted as the candidate of the Christian right.
By the late 80s the inadequacy of this kind of moralism in
politics was evident. The televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker were
exposed for their marital infidelities and financial corruption. Yet the
Christian right did not learn the lesson. Personal immorality among liberals
was seen as endemic, while among conservatives it was an occasional lapse for
which one could be forgiven.
Bill Clinton seemed the ideal candidate for this linking of
personal immorality and liberal politics. The Christian right set out to bring
him down by exposing his sexual escapades. As it happened, many across the
political spectrum were tarred by the same brush, while Clinton was spared
removal from office. The upshot is an American public thoroughly disgusted by
the politicization of personal sexuality and disposed to reenforce the
separation of private morality from public competence.
Those on the liberal left politically should not necessarily
rejoice in such a separation. The relation of personal morality and politics is
complex. One who lives a strict moral life might also be an inquisitioner,
ready to burn dissenters, while a revolutionary leader such as Nicaraguas
Daniel Ortega turned out to be a sexual abuser of his stepchild.
Yet liberals need to reflect on how morality and politics might be
connected from their side. Do we need to recognize a relationship between
morality in a deeper sense of personal integrity and liberal politics in the
sense of concern for justice in society?
Clintons immorality is about more than his
sexual infidelity. It connects to his entire personality, more concerned with
opportunism and the quick fix than with consistent principles. The same man who
lied about his sexual life also prefers to solve complex international problems
by bombing rather than with difficult, long-term work for change. The
seducer personality in Clinton not only betrayed his wife and
child, but also those who looked to him for justice in areas such as welfare
rights. Are these unconnected? I think not.
However complex the relationship of moral personality to politics,
one should not be surprised that someone who will betray his wife and friends
will also betray the poor.
Rosemary Radford Ruether is professor of theology at
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Ill.
National Catholic Reporter, April 23,
1999
|