Indict the terrorist in the White House
In the wake of the criminal bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan by war lord Clinton, it seems rather trivial to return to the question of the President’s sex life.
This is of course what Clinton gambled when he timed the bombings to coincide with Lewinsky’s second interrogation by investigator Kenneth Starr - about which the press have been strangely silent ever since.
Clearly the potential impeachment of the President of the United States – the most powerful man on earth - is a subject worthy of discussion and comment. Now it appears, that despite the support of Newt Gringrich (bought with the lives of those killed by the American raids), Clinton’s address to the nation in which he confessed his misdemeanours was not sufficient. A leading member of the Democratic Party demanded a further apology.
Increasingly as the deadline for Starr’s report draws nearer, deeper fissures appear within the American ruling class as to whether the President can – or should – be saved. These divisions are not only between Republicans and Democrats, but within Clinton’s own Party.
The discussion as to whether he should be impeached or censured straddles both parties.
But should socialists be in favour of Clinton’s impeachment? For us this is not a question of his crimes as an individual – among which the slaughter in Afghanistan and Sudan take their place alongside other massacres – but on what the dynamic would be.
Our verdict is not that Clinton is a bad apple in an otherwise healthy orchard. His rooting out would not lead in and of itself to a lessening of the crimes against either the American people or the peoples of the world. Anyone who doubts this need only remember back to previous scandals such as Watergate. We have no confidence in the Supreme Court to hand out justice for our class.
Much of the debate in the press hinges on the assumption – which we certainly do not share – that there is a fundamental difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
So we are accurately informed that the driving force for Clinton’s impeachment is coming from the Republicans – and their extreme right wing at that. The implication is therefore that he should be defended against this attack whatever his crimes.
Even prominent feminists have rushed to Clinton’s defence, putting defence of the Democratic Party and its representative in the White House before the interests of women. While this comes as no surprise given the fact that the National Organisation of Women (NOW) has long been tied to the coat tails of the Democrats, it is none the less scandalous.
Clinton is not only accused of ‘inappropriate relations’ with Monica Lewinsky but of sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Sexual harassment is never defensible – and clearly the relationship of power in this instance is very clear. Our verdict has nothing to do with our view of the individual making the accusation.
In relation to the situation with Lewinsky, the statement to the nation talks about an `inappropriate’ relationship, but dodged the question of what was inappropriate about it.
The critics from the Republican, Christian fundamentalist right have focused on the question of extra-marital sex. Clearly this is not the issue for socialists, though we don’t condone deceit in personal relationships including in marriage.
Our concern focuses again primarily on the question of real consent and the abuse of power. While consenting sexual relationships between younger and older people do exist, and similarly relationships between employers and employees are not always exploitative, it seems pretty clear that Lewinsky was used.
She herself seems to have drawn this conclusion from the President’s address when he apologised to everyone else except her.
So it is not only our verdict on Afghanistan and Khartoum which is different from that of main stream opinion, but on the issues behind the domestic crisis. Of course the hearings in front of
the Grand Jury are not only about sex – issues of corruption and financial probity in campaigning are also under scrutiny.
Dumping an individual who is no longer the best instrument for the ruling class, especially when the debate about their actual crimes at home and abroad has been so obscured, will advance nothing. That is why we call for Clinton’s indictment – and that of the whole establishment behind him – on the basis of war crimes.