The allegations surrounding President Bill Clinton’s sexual behaviour are getting more serious. Moreover, if sustained, they seem to reveal a pattern of behaviour — the abuse of a position of power by an older man or a much younger woman. They also follow an aspect of the Watergate scandal that brought the Nixon presidency to an end. That was the fact that the original malfeasance was not the cause of the president’s undoing. Rather it was the president’s attempt to cover up or ameliorate the original malfeasance.
In Mr Nixon’s case it was the covering up of White House knowledge of the break-in of Democrat election headquarters at the Watergate Hotel where the Democrats rather than the break-in itself that caused the damage because the cover-up involved breaches of the law and fairly solid evidence of lying.
In Mr Clinton’s case, he might have weathered the storm over the Paula Jones allegations of sexual harassment but if the new allegations are true he will not be able to weather the storm of his attempt to ameliorate those allegations.
The new allegations are that he put pressure on a former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, to deny on oath that she had had an affair with him if she was asked the question by attorneys to Miss Jones. Ironically enough, Miss Jones’s attorneys are seeking evidence of a pattern of conduct on the part of Mr Clinton which they can use in the sexual harassment case to support their claim.
The sexual harassment claim is only a civil one. Even if Miss Jones were successful it would not put Mr Clinton’s presidency at risk, however politically damaging it might be or however damaging to Mr Clinton’s position in the history books. The allegations about Miss Lewinsky, however, are of a different character. They are accusations that the president engaged in conduct likely to pervert the course of justice. They are accusations of a criminal nature. If sustained, they would inevitably lead to calls and action for his impeachment.
It is a long way off and there are a lot of ifs on the way. The fact of the affair and the suggestion to lie on oath would have to be proved. That would require more than Miss Lewinsky’s say so, but there is apparently some evidence of taped conversations with a White House staffer, Linda Tripp, mentioning both the alleged affair and the alleged attempt at cover-up. This could give some antecedent corroboration.
Mr Clinton has already weathered one storm over his sexual conduct. That was the allegation that he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. During the campaign he denied it, but after election he admitted it. That damaged his credibility, but it was not an impeachable matter. These new allegations are and that is crucial. It means Mr Clinton will be distracted from his main task of governing the country.
Previous presidents have managed to govern while engaged in serious distractions, including Mr Nixon. The US executive government is more than one person. The president has a huge staff. The departments of state have huge staffs. They can advise and inform with great efficiency. With that background past presidents have shown a great ability to put things in compartments, concentrating intently for short periods on one crucial matter of state despite pressing personal concerns.
Nonetheless there are dangers here. The first is that with the president engaged in a personal battle for survival as president, the focus tends to shift to others in the administration. The Nixon administration had Dr Henry Kissinger and General Alexander Haig. In Mr Clinton’s case, greater attention might focus on Vice-President Al Gore.
The second danger is that a president under personal siege might be more likely to engage in the politics of distraction. Some tougher-than-required action against Saddam Hussein of Iraq might be a more tempting option. Some grand announcements on the domestic front might tempt a president in an attempt to move the spotlight from the personal crisis.
It is fortunate that Mr Clinton is in his second term and that the Constitution prohibits a third consecutive term. If he was facing re-election the temptation to engage in the politics of distraction would be that much higher.