Monica Lewinsky Is (Half) Right

 

shutterstock_99375410Monica Lewinsky has reemerged to claim the spotlight. She gave a speech the other day about being the “patient zero” of Internet-driven attacks on one’s reputation. In describing her experience, she began:

Sixteen years ago, fresh out of college, a 22-year-old intern in the White House — and more than averagely romantic – I fell in love with my boss in a 22-year-old sort of a way. It happens. But my boss was the President of the United States. That probably happens less often.

Hearing the audio clips and reading the transcript, I think she’s correct, but doesn’t go far enough. In any organization outside government, when a 22-year-old intern falls in love with her boss, the boss knows he cannot have a romantic or sexual relationship with her. The relationship would not be coequal. In any organization outside government, the power differential would be assumed to be exploitative. In any organization outside government, the boss would know that revelation of such a relationship would cost him his job.

I’ll recap some history for the millenials. President Clinton was sued in 1994 by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, for sexual harassment. In her suit, Ms. Jones claimed that after she refused then-Gov. Clinton’s request for sexual favors, she was denied promotions and her career suffered. In contrast, there were reports of a former White House intern who had engaged in a sexual relationship with President Clinton and was then given direct assistance in landing a plum job.

Clinton first argued that a sitting president could not be sued; SCOTUS rejected that argument with respect to matters outside the president’s official duties, so the suit proceeded. As the case progressed over the next four years, information trickled out, much of it tawdry: Lewinsky was the former intern; her friend Linda Tripp had secret tapes of Lewinsky discussing the relationship; Lewinsky had saved a “little blue dress” and refused to wash it because it was stained with Clinton’s “DNA”; President Clinton had subsequently perjured himself, lying under oath that no relationship with Ms. Lewinsky had existed, and was accused of manipulating witnesses.

The tawdriness was exacerbated by Clinton’s shameless manipulation of the media, from the photos of the Clintons going to church, to the televised fingerpointing denials, to the attack dogs he unleashed to eviscerate the reputations of anyone who stood in his way; most notably, prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The perjury charge was the most substantially documented of the many scandals Starr was tasked with investigating, so he used it as the basis for his impeachment recommendation. Paula Jones eventually settled her suit in 1998 for $850,000, after Clinton was impeached but the Senate — in a bizarre trial in which it refused to review any evidence — declined to convict.

In her speech, Ms. Lewinsky lamented the her experience as the target of media attacks too:

During this period, I gradually came to realize that there were two Monica Lewinskys. Yes, the world was big enough for two of us. There was me. And there was public Monica Lewinsky, a somewhat curious character constructed by political factions and the media, constructed with a little fact and a lot of fiction….

What does it actually feel like? What does it really feel like to watch yourself – or your name and likeness—to be ripped apart online?

Some of you may know this yourself. It feels like a punch in the gut. As if a stranger walked up to you on the street and punched you hard and sharp in the gut.

For me, that was every day in 1998. There was a rotation of worsening name calling and descriptions of me. I would go online, read in a paper or see on TV people referring to me as: tramp, slut, whore, tart, bimbo, floozy, even spy.

I feel much sympathy for Lewinsky, and was moved by her description. What she overlooked in her speech, however, was the agency of President Clinton. The prosecutors were keeping her information confidential. It was the president — and his cutthroat defenders — who leaked and planted information in the media to discredit her. They could not afford for the country to understand that Clinton was an irresponsible lout. So they had to make the public believe instead that she was obsessed.

There is a straight line from Monica’s experience to the Obama scandals. Before Watergate, the media sought out juicy stories on both parties (though they looked the other way when the scandals were personal). After Watergate, the media adopted a new narrative: Republicans are bad guys with scandals to be discovered, Democrats are the good guys who need to be defended, and reporters are the heroes who shape events.

As the first post-Watergate president dogged by personal scandal, Clinton presented a challenge to this narrative. So the media went into overdrive to ensure that the public would not hear of the scandals or — when that became impossible — to”contextualize” information so the public would not draw the undesired conclusions. Everything from the Whitewater deal, to the Travel Office firings, to the disappearing (and reappearing) Rose Law Firm billing records, to the misuse of FBI files, to the inexplicable hiring of bar bouncer Craig Livingstone, to the myriad campaign finance irregularities was swept under the rug. And when the president was sued for quid pro quo sexual harassment, with incontrovertible evidence, and the president then perjured himself — a scandal that the public could understand easily without the media’s help — the media helped turn it into a story about an obsessive girl’s crush.

Today, the media is similarly in the pocket of a Democratic president. Once again, the media is remarkably uncurious about numerous meaty scandals. Once again, the lies go unchallenged so as to preserve the narrative. Once again, the little people are taken advantage of by the powerful. At least Monica can be grateful that she — unlike Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, and Brian Terry — is still with us 17 years later to tell her side of the story.
Image Credit: Featureflash / Shutterstock.com

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Son,

    Let’s review.  Shallow rich girl uses her parents money and political connections to gain a White House internship.  A job only dreamed of by millions of young people much more talented and deserving than the shallow rich girl.

    At the job the shallow rich girl becomes the sexual toy of a married man twice her age.  When he is caught he throws her under the bus to try to escape the consequences.  We are now to feel her deep hurt at the awful treatment she received.

    The President who did this should have resigned before he was impeached.  She should have never been heard from again.

    To hell with them both.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #31
  2. AUMom Member
    AUMom
    @AUMom

    Son of Spengler:

    MarciN: I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone takes the Clintons seriously. Lowlife of the century.

    And I feel as if I’ve only scratched the surface. Remember being afraid to listen to AM radio in the presence of children, because the news reports were R-rated (or at least PG-13)? Remember the dismissals of the relationship as “consensual sex”, as if Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick or Hillary Clinton had consented in their respective cases? Remember the squad that managed the “bimbo eruptions” — James Carville, Paul Begala, Hillary Clinton…? The one good thing I can think of with regard to the Clinton years is that the unending lies and corruption turned me from a liberal to a centrist and finally into a conservative.

    This is how my 3rd grade son heard about oral sex. I had no idea that news could be so bad.

    • #32
  3. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    captainpower:

    EJHill: While we lament the incompletness of the impeachment of Bill Clinton just keep repeating to yourself, “On 9/11, President Gore…”

    Since we are playing counterfactuals, a President Al Gore might have authorized elimination of Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11 (choices that President Bill Clinton was presented with several times).

    It may be a stretch to imagine, but it’s also unknowable.

    Ah, no. Al Gore lived downstairs from me at college. He was a mope, and I rather doubt that he would have done anything solid. He was nothing to talk about in school, in any way.

    • #33
  4. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Donald Todd: Donald Todd Donald Todd I remember a related issue. A woman was convicted of perjury, and she questioned why she was going to jail when the president did the same thing and did not go to jail. It was then and is now a perfectly relevant question: Why didn’t Clinton go to jail for perjury?

    Because Bill was/is the poster child for the Baby Boomers; the pot smokin’, “free loving” hippies that anything goes. The only exception is the divorces; Bill and Hillary has stuck together for the sake of ambition.

    For Bill to be charged guilty and arrested would take an overwhelming majority of the electorate. And Who was/is the overwhelming electorate? The Baby Boomers. And charging and arresting Bill would be the equivalent of the Baby Boomers charging and arresting Themselves for such crimes.

    • #34
  5. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Ed G.: We don’t need to long for honor suicides do we? We can still find him despicable without wishing death upon him can’t we?

    I’d settle for him retiring in disgrace to a cabin in Montana taking his cackling, conniving, enabling “wife” with him. So they could stare at each other over the kitchen table…

    A month of that and he would be begging for a brandy and revolver……

    • #35
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.