The Big Dog

The recent revelations that have cascaded about sexual harassment has led to a critical re-evaluations of Bill Clinton.  I think that's a good thing, and perhaps overdue.

One of the issues is, of course, Monica Lewinsky.  The problem I have is that the affair between Lewinsky and Clinton doesn't feel like harassment to me.  She initiated the relationship (famously flashing her thong at him), and she claims it was consensual to this day.  If there was no Paula Jones lawsuit, then his behavior was inherently skeevy, but not harassment.

No, the problem with Clinton isn't that he had a brief affair with Lewinsky.  But there are real problems.

First, and least disputably, the conduct of the damage control team that sought to protect Clinton was objectively bad.  They trashed Lewinsky.  That is not OK.  This is a "blame the woman" approach that typified the maximalist tactics of the Clinton political machine.

Second, there is Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones.  I'm not sure how we look at those incidents as NOT being sexual harassment.  Maybe the Jones thing was consensual, but Clinton initiated that.  Maybe Jones was flirting with him, but I doubt it.  She worked for the state of Arkansas and he pressured her into sex.  He groped Willey. 

But the most serious allegations that we have to come to terms with is Juanita Broderick.  Her allegations are that Clinton out-and-out raped her.  There are corroborating witnesses to the aftermath.  To paraphrase Mitch McConnell, "I believe the woman."  What I find curious is the focus that Yglesias and others are putting on the Lewinksy affair.  I don't think that's the right focus.  The focus should be on Jones, Willey and, above all, Broderick. 

We are having an accountability moment as a culture.  I supported Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal, so maybe my feeling that the actual sexual contact isn't a problem is tainted by that.  But I also think that sexual contact happens.  It happens in the workplace.  It happens between people who do not have equal power relationships.  And it is not always harassment when it does. 

Where I have to change my mind - and have - is that the Clinton White House abused Lewinksy in the press after the fact.  I think he harassed Willey and almost certainly harassed Jones.  I think it is at least possible, if not probable, that he raped Juanita Broderick.

What that means for future evaluations of Bill Clinton and his legacy is complicated.  I do think there is room for complexity in our understanding of past figures in light of current moral standards.  I think Sally Hemmings had no autonomy in her relationship with Jefferson, but she may very well have had agency.  I don't know, and we will never know.  Judging the past is difficult when using a modern lens.

Clinton's behavior was not 200 years ago, though.  It occurred as we began to acknowledge, at least in the broadest of strokes, that sexual harassment was wrong.  How we evaluate Bill Clinton in light of the fact that we are being overwhelmed with the evidence that wrong-doing against women is much more prevalent than - some - men believed?  I think focusing just on the fact that the President carried on an affair with an intern is missing the bigger, more troubling allegations.  Clinton shows the signs of being a sexual predator, using his power to satisfy himself sexually.

I wonder if we will have more revelations about him, the way we have floodgates opening on other public figures.  If so, we should welcome and believe those accusations so that we can move forward into a culture where that is unlikely to happen again.