Incoherence on Clinton and Lewinsky

This makes no sense. In the wake of Harvey Weinstein et al, there is now a move by decent liberals to say that their defence of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair was wrong. The link is a piece to that effect from someone sane and reasonable. But it makes no sense. (More below)


Perhaps Clinton was a criminal of some kind (sexual or perjury) who deserved to be impeached for that reason - but that's not the argument here: there is no suggestion that Lewinsky was anything other than a consenting adult; Clinton was not a Weinstein so far as Lewinsky was concerned.

Clinton was an adulterer - but again, that's not the problem here, we are told.

Clinton treated Lewinsky very badly once the affair came to light. That's her complaint and it strikes me as a pretty serious complaint. And shouldn't we believe the victim? Yglesias says that the bad thing happened before then.

Yglesias says that the bad thing Clinton did - the unforgivable high crimes and misdemeanours thing - was this: "A president who uses the power of the Oval Office to seduce a 20-something subordinate is morally bankrupt and contributing, in a meaningful way, to a serious social problem that disadvantages millions of women throughout their lives."

How does that work?

Imagine that Hillary had died (so we eliminate adultery from the picture) and Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, was looking to form a new relationship. Who does Yglesias say he would be allowed to kiss? Everyone in his office was his subordinate. Who else was he going to meet? Boris Yeltsin? But even Yeltsin had less power than Clinton.

Or is the 20-somethingness of Lewinsky that was the problem? Do you have to reach 30 to have a romantic relationship with the US President? Recall that Clinton was only 46 when he became President. How successful would 46 year olds have to be before Yglesias would stop them having romantic relationships with 29 year olds?

Or is that it would have been ok if Clinton hadn't used "the power of the Oval Office" but just his native wit and charm? Try making that distinction in real life.

I don't mean to pick on Yglesias for groping his way to a more developed moral code in this area of life, but it strikes me that once traditional sexual morality has been abandoned and we then try to move beyond anything-goes-as-long-as-there's-consent, the 'rules' being suggested are literally incoherent.

(And then Yglesias mentions President Mitterrand! Isn't the current French President married to a woman who "contribut[ed] in a meaningful way to a serious social problem that disadvantages" schoolchildren? Or does that not count?)