SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Rajeev Srinivasan

The Clinton megillah should be treated as pure entertainment, nothing more

I am of the opinion that Americans are merely moralising people, although they think they are a moral people. They are quick to lecture everyone else on the right way of doing this, that or the other. Their way -- democracy, capitalism, McDonald's, motherhood and apple pie -- is firmly believed to the the Right Way ('manifest destiny', I suppose, although unlike the Brits of old they don't suggest God is an American, at least not yet. Small mercies).

Which is one of the reasons the American establishment has had a hard time with India -- Indians are, alas, very good at pontificating on moral issues. Yanks don't take kindly to being lectured at by a bunch of Third World types. Indians need to change tack here: what works with the US is guilt-inducement (ask Israel) or plain brazen stubbornness (ask China).

The entire sorry circus -- or morality play -- going on in the US these days is most entertaining. Say what you will, but Americans sure do know how to put on a good show. The spectacle of certified hypocrites in full cry, baying for Clinton's blood, is most amusing. Reminds me of that old saw about fox-hunting: the unspeakable in full pursuit of the inedible.

I mean, let's get real. As any red-blooded American man will tell you in confidence, being a bit of a 'ladies' man' is something that everyone aspires to. Locker-room talk about the many women one has had is pretty much the norm. So let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone, folks. Those who, like Jimmy Carter, only 'lust in their hearts' are few.

Kinsey's and Masters/Johnson's statistics are that a significant percentage of married American men have had extra-marital affairs. Similar numbers on the side of married American women too. Stands to reason: if men are doing it, then their wives probably are too; and being cleverer and more devious, getting away undetected, too.

As for well-known people indulging in a bit of hanky-panky on the side, this is by no means new. Emperors of old had harems. Empress Catherine of Russia expired, blissfully no doubt, while er... in close embrace with a horse! (I'm afraid the horse's state of mind was not recorded.)

French presidents, for example Francois Mitterand, openly acknowledge illegitimate children. John Kennedy frequently cavorted naked in the White House pools with a bevy of babes. Chairman Mao never brushed his teeth, but often had sex with young girls.

The point is, at the end of the day, does sexual indiscretion really matter? As a cynic, I think it doesn't. That is, insofar as it does not interfere with public figures's ability to perform their roles. It is true, of course, that people constantly use sex to manipulate the influential or powerful.

To take just one or two examples, the famous spy Mata Hari used her body to worm secrets out of diplomats earlier this century. Sexual blackmail enabled Soviets to recruit double agents like Kim Philby. But there isn't any evidence that his er... conquests influenced the conduct of public policy by Clinton.

However, there is the possibility that Clinton will be tempted into doing something rash to regain his, as it were, lost honor. Such as the current saber-rattling about Iraq. In an astonishing case of life imitating cinema, a recent film, Wag the Dog, presented just such a scenario -- hounded by charges of sexual misconduct, the US president arranges a military adventure as a diversionary tactic.

This is the only thing that worries me about Clinton's current plight. He is a man much influenced by the approval ratings sweepstakes, and so he will almost certainly do something to distract the great unwashed masses; and what better than to attack that convenient villain Saddam Hussein. Sadly for Clinton, he doesn't have 'impeachment insurance', unlike George Bush -- Al Gore doesn't terrify people like his rather dim predecessor Dan Quayle did.

So long as public figures are performing their roles, private lives do not matter: it is only their public lives that matter to those governed. People knew that candidate Clinton was not the most faithful of men. Yet they elected him, not once, but twice. Doesn't that mean the average American is pretty much inured to Clinton's skirt-chasing?

Various polls suggest that most people don't think Clinton has done anything more heinous than what the average American does. As one wag noted, they have entered into a Faustian bargain with Clinton: so long as the 'Dow' Jones is doing well, they don't care what Clinton does with 'Paula' Jones. And for sure, the stock market has been doing spectacularly well, indeed.

A lot of the sound and fury in this matter comes from the religious fundamentalists in the US. Curiously, many of their own have been found indulging in a little extra-curricular activity now and then, cavorting with prostitutes.

American street-walkers must be awfully tempting even to the pious. Or maybe the fire-and-brimstone southern born-again-Christian preachers -- Jimmy Swaggart and the Baker chap come to mind right away -- who have thus been caught were just doing a little field research, the poor dears, as to what tempts their flock?

It is true that there is a certain constituency in America that really hates Clinton for what he stands for, and this whole sexual thing has become their stick to beat him with. It is a continuing political vendetta that we see played out in oceans of ink and huge amounts of hot air.

There is the smokescreen of 'perjury under oath' and so forth. Mere technicalities. Who cares? Politicians always lie -- this is a tautology. There were indeed presidents who deserved to be impeached, and for greater crimes: those who ordered and supported wars, bombings and covert actions that killed thousands of people. They were not impeached, so why this moral indignation now? Double-standards, as usual.

Therefore the Clinton megillah should be treated as pure entertainment, nothing more. It certainly has breathed new life into the craft of the stand-up comic, who can now talk about Zippergate and of how, if only Clinton's pants could talk, the stories they would tell, and so forth. The usual low comedy.

Since it is entertaining for the rest of us to watch the famous squirm, let me excerpt something forwarded to me by my friend Varsha Bhosle who was in stitches over this, as was I. Puns, I am aware, are the lowest form of comedy, but this is hilarious:

'In the aftermath of the initial administration responses to the breaking story, it seems apparent that Mr Clinton has left a bad taste in Lewinsky's mouth. A growing majority are finding the president's story hard to swallow, noting that it appears quite evident that Monica was influenced by some sort of presidential 'gag order.' Keeping her mouth shut, the First Lady is going to be taking it on the chin. At the same time, sources report she is afraid that Lewinsky has blown everything. Vernon Jordan is reported to have suggested that Ms Lewinsky approach the president with a stiff upper lip for the time being, and is quite upset at how much damage her wagging tongue seems to have done.'

I wonder, though, being partial to conspiracy theories, if this whole freakshow is in and of itself a diversionary maneouver. After all, serious things are happening around the world, especially in Asia with so many economies collapsing. In the midst of all this, there are bottom-fishers who stand to make a great deal of money.

The so-called IMF rescue packages are using American taxpayer's money to do the following: bail out American banks that foolishly lent money to Asian banks that then foolishly lent it out on uncreditworthy speculative activities. Now these debts are being backed up by sovereign guarantees, and the assets of the defaulting banks are being picked up at firesale prices by the selfsame American banks. Sure sounds to me like a scam.

In some ways, this is a huge transfer of assets from East Asians to American banks. This sort of thing isn't new: the Savings & Loan scandal in the 1980s ended up with a transfer of $ 280 billion from the US taxpayer to banking industry fat-cats. Very cozy little arrangement.

Now I wonder if the timing of the Clinton sexual scandal has been manipulated so that those who might otherwise be looking at the economic soundness of these activities closely are distracted by the juicy sex scandal?

No, maybe not. I'll just enjoy the fun, watch Bill squirm, Hillary 'stand by her man'. And regret that in India there are only boring scandals like Bofors, nothing anywhere near as entertaining as what the Yanks have, the lucky guys.

Rajeev Srinivasan