The Left Is Still Unable To Face Bill Clintonâs Alleged Sex Crimes
Bill Clinton
It is fascinating and welcome to see liberals discovering their consciences on  Bill Clintonâs  alleged rapist tendencies. True  this moral revelation comes about two decades later than it should have  and at precisely the moment the Left can no longer reasonably ignore it and not a moment sooner.
Just the same  it is nice to finally see some honesty on this issue. It is nice to see liberals  having no more use for the Clintons  finally undertaking what MSNBC host Chris Hayes calls âa real reckoningâ with the very real possibility that  Bill Clinton  raped Juanita Broaddrick nearly 40 years ago.
And yet. One is tempted to believe weâre witnessing not a âreckoningâ but a quick and guilty kind of moral shrug  a sort of Kansas City shuffle meant to absolve a bunch of deeply culpable people of their own deep and stinking culpability. For a real âreckoningâ of American liberalismâs wink-nod approach to  Bill Clintonâs  alleged sex crimes would implicate American liberalism itself  or at least the last few decades of it. That is understandably not something many liberals are willing to do.
A great example of this evasive genre can be found at The Atlantic  where Caitlin Flanagan has written an article titled  simply  â Bill Clinton : A Reckoning.â The article itself is actually not a reckoning of  Bill Clinton  or even an overture toward a reckoning.
Indeed  Flanagan only comes to the sexual assault allegations leveled at  Clinton  only about two-thirds of the way through  after bringing up Clarence Thomasâs alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill. She places most of the blame for  Clinton  on âmachine feminismâ rather than Democratic opportunism  then lamely asserts Democrats need to âcome to termsâ with how they âabandoned some of [their] central principlesâ in their unthinking defense of  Clinton .
Almost as an afterthought  Goldberg writes: âItâs fair to conclude  that because of Broaddrickâs allegations   Bill Clinton  no longer has a place in decent society.â Goodness  after two decades this is the best we can manage?
Even Hayesâs own viral tweet is couched in a tired and evasive formula. âAs gross and cynical and hypocrtical [sic] as the rightâs âwhat about  Bill Clinton â stuff is â  he  wrote  âitâs also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against  him .â Got it: so the Right is âgross and cynical and hypocriticalâ regarding the Leftâs steadfast avoidance of  Bill Clintonâs  alleged sex crimes  but weâre also correct? Are liberals capable of discussing  Clinton âs sordid history without having to obsessively refer back to conservatives?
They Let  Bill Clinton  Keep Legitimacy for 18 More Years
There is a deeper and more cynical politics at work here. âReckoningâ with  Bill Clintonâs  alleged crimes is not just a matter of the Democratic Party saying sorry for not believing Broaddrick in 1999.  Bill Clinton  has remained a prominent fixture of the party in the intervening 18 years  including as a major fundraiser during  his  wifeâs two failed campaigns for president and as a stump for other Democrats  including President Obama.
Progressives  meanwhile  adore  him . â Bill Clinton  couldnât keep it in  his  pants  but  he  was a great president!â one very liberal woman told me years ago. Broaddrick would surely agree with the first part. Summing up the feelings of millions of progressive millennials  comedian John Mulaney described  Clinton  as a âsmooth and fantastic hillbilly who should be declared emperor of the United State of America.â This kind of hero-worship is only possible if one disbelieves Broaddrickâs testimony entirelyâtestimony that  20 years on  remains very credible.
A âreckoningâ of the accusations against  Bill Clinton  must thus also function as a reckoning of the last couple of decades of Democratic politics  a politics that has featured  Bill Clinton  as an ancillary yet still near-permanent fixture. Every Democrat has known of Broaddrickâs accusations for years. Yet  Bill Clinton  was still eagerly accepted within âdecent society â and  his  wifeâwho is quite reasonably seen as both an apologist for her husbandâs perverted behavior and possibly a criminal conspirator regarding his crimesâbecame the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party itself in the last election.
To reckon with all of this means to reckon with the Democratic party in totoâits political instincts  its morals  and its public credibility and future viability.The Left predictably isnât very keen to do that. So we get what weâve witnessed in the past week: liberals feigning a kind of come-to-Jesus public confessional over  Bill Clinton  while ultimately just complaining about conservatives.
It is true that  in the end  we do not know if  Bill Clinton  raped Broaddrick. It is virtually impossible to prove  it  one way or the other  as  it  generally is with these types of claims. It would not be wholly unreasonable for someone to doubt Broaddrick after a careful review of the evidence. Then again  her claim  and the evidence surrounding it  is compelling enough to be believable  more so than many.
So what does it say about the Democratic Party that it has nevertheless allowed  Bill Clinton  a revered and permanent spot in its ranks? And what does it say about liberals that  even now  after all of this time  they cannot truly come to grips with it?
It is fascinating and welcome to see liberals discovering their consciences on   [TGT] alleged rapist tendencies. True  this moral revelation comes about two decades later than it should have  and at precisely the moment the Left can no longer reasonably ignore it and not a moment sooner.
Just the same  it is nice to finally see some honesty on this issue. It is nice to see liberals  having no more use for the Clintons  finally undertaking what MSNBC host Chris Hayes calls âa real reckoningâ with the very real possibility that   [TGT] raped Juanita Broaddrick nearly 40 years ago.
And yet. One is tempted to believe weâre witnessing not a âreckoningâ but a quick and guilty kind of moral shrug  a sort of Kansas City shuffle meant to absolve a bunch of deeply culpable people of their own deep and stinking culpability. For a real âreckoningâ of American liberalismâs wink-nod approach to   [TGT] alleged sex crimes would implicate American liberalism itself  or at least the last few decades of it. That is understandably not something many liberals are willing to do.
A great example of this evasive genre can be found at The Atlantic  where Caitlin Flanagan has written an article titled  simply  â Bill Clinton : A Reckoning.â The article itself is actually not a reckoning of   [TGT]   or even an overture toward a reckoning.
Indeed  Flanagan only comes to the sexual assault allegations leveled at  Clinton  only about two-thirds of the way through  after bringing up Clarence Thomasâs alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill. She places most of the blame for  Clinton  on âmachine feminismâ rather than Democratic opportunism  then lamely asserts Democrats need to âcome to termsâ with how they âabandoned some of [their] central principlesâ in their unthinking defense of  Clinton .
Almost as an afterthought  Goldberg writes: âItâs fair to conclude  that because of Broaddrickâs allegations    [TGT]   no longer has a place in decent society.â Goodness  after two decades this is the best we can manage?
Even Hayesâs own viral tweet is couched in a tired and evasive formula. âAs gross and cynical and hypocrtical [sic] as the rightâs âwhat about   [TGT]  â stuff is â  he  wrote  âitâs also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against  him .â Got it: so the Right is âgross and cynical and hypocriticalâ regarding the Leftâs steadfast avoidance of   [TGT] alleged sex crimes  but weâre also correct? Are liberals capable of discussing   [TGT]  âs sordid history without having to obsessively refer back to conservatives?
They Let   [TGT]   Keep Legitimacy for 18 More Years
There is a deeper and more cynical politics at work here. âReckoningâ with   [TGT] alleged crimes is not just a matter of the Democratic Party saying sorry for not believing Broaddrick in 1999.  Bill Clinton  has remained a prominent fixture of the party in the intervening 18 years  including as a major fundraiser during  his  wifeâs two failed campaigns for president and as a stump for other Democrats  including President Obama.
Progressives  meanwhile  adore  him . â  [TGT]   couldnât keep it in  his  pants  but  he  was a great president!â one very liberal woman told me years ago. Broaddrick would surely agree with the first part. Summing up the feelings of millions of progressive millennials  comedian John Mulaney described  Clinton  as a âsmooth and fantastic hillbilly who should be declared emperor of the United State of America.â This kind of hero-worship is only possible if one disbelieves Broaddrickâs testimony entirelyâtestimony that  20 years on  remains very credible.
A âreckoningâ of the accusations against  [TGT] must thus also function as a reckoning of the last couple of decades of Democratic politics  a politics that has featured   [TGT] as an ancillary yet still near-permanent fixture. Every Democrat has known of Broaddrickâs accusations for years. Yet   [TGT] was still eagerly accepted within âdecent society â and   [TGT]   wifeâwho is quite reasonably seen as both an apologist for  [TGT]  husbandâs perverted behavior and possibly a criminal conspirator regarding his crimesâbecame the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party itself in the last election.
To reckon with all of this means to reckon with the Democratic party in totoâits political instincts  its morals  and its public credibility and future viability.The Left predictably isnât very keen to do that. So we get what weâve witnessed in the past week: liberals feigning a kind of come-to-Jesus public confessional over   [TGT]   while ultimately just complaining about conservatives.
It is true that  in the end  we do not know if   [TGT] raped Broaddrick. It is virtually impossible to prove  it  one way or the other  as  it  generally is with these types of claims. It would not be wholly unreasonable for someone to doubt Broaddrick after a careful review of the evidence. Then again  her claim  and the evidence surrounding it  is compelling enough to be believable  more so than many.
So what does it say about the Democratic Party that it has nevertheless allowed   [TGT]   a revered and permanent spot in its ranks? And what does it say about liberals that  even now  after all of this time  they cannot truly come to grips with it?