It seems that hardly a day goes by lately without the ruination of another prominent man by allegations of sexual misconduct.
Somehow, though, Bill Clinton sails along. Can there be any doubt that this blackguard is a sexual predator of the first order? Of course not; the allegations are legion, including a highly plausible accusation of rape — and that he used a naive and winsome 21-year-old Oval Office intern as a sex toy and a humidor is a matter of public record.
What is it about this guy that makes him uniquely invulnerable, even as the Clinton star begins to fall? Is all of his infamy — his lies, his infidelities, his serial abuse of women and his nonchalance about destroying them if they dare to make trouble later — just “grandfathered in”? Does he still wield some dark and terrifying power over his former courtiers and thralls, even in decline?
Whatever it is, you have to hand it to the guy. Then go wash your hand.
4 Comments
How does he do it? A Faustian Bargain I’ll bet. Hell on Earth- Married to Hillary. Hell later on-to be worked out. Maybe the Devil has a certain table he plans to bend Bill over and, well, it won’t be a cigar!
One thing I would note Malcolm is the general willingness of people to give a dispensation to powerful (almost always) men who are unequivivally unapologetic about their actions. You would think, for example, that Clinton’s unwillingness to ever honestly say that he’s sorry for his long-running and shabby – occasionally treacherous – treatment of women would disqualify him from polite society. Not at all! We tolerate that sort of thing, especially over time, whereas if Clinton had ever exhibited true remorse he’d now be consigned to one of the secular circles of hell. (Conversly, think of the overpowering hatred that especially liberals have for Nixon even today, perhaps partly because unlike other leaders he was probably genuinely ashamed of at least some of his actions, something you could see on his face.) Or observe how the Hollywood vultures came out to feast on Weinstein only after he had been seriously wounded. And one can find endless analogues of this, from our current commander-of-chief to a certain judge running for a senate seat in the South.
This isn’t a new thing either. I remember reading a remembrance Garry Wills had of a conversation with a woman discussing JFK’s affairs. He (or she?) argues that knowledge of the presiden’s extra-curricular activities then would not have disqualified him from office. On the contrary, people would have thought that since he knows how to handle his women, he’ll also be able to manage the Soviets. And one can go back further in time and point out, say, the medieval kings, who generally were guilty of sexual cupidity while simultaneously upholding Christian doctrines in their realms. There must be a HBD explanation for this, of submitting to the powerful and unrepentant, yet holding those in contempt who admit to sin and are penitent.
Very good comments, Jason. And quite right: that powerful men – the sort of men who rise to alpha status in a brutally competitive world, and have power and money to throw around – consider women an entitlement is nothing new in the world, and is as true in many other species as it is in ours. Nobody with any understanding of history and human nature should be surprised by any of this.
My only point was that even in the current moral panic, Bill Clinton seems entirely forgotten.