Once you elect a president you’re stuck with him. Forget about impeachment. Nixon was a historical fluke.
People keep obsessing about Bill, “Court ‘em and Kiss ‘em,” Clinton and his, er, relations with members of the opposite sex.
It’s been both very hard and easy to sit back, observe this national drama, and not put pen to paper. But I’ve finally reached my limit. It’s time to comment — like it or not!
Rationalization is rationalization no matter how you cut it. It’s so obvious and transparent why some people either criticize or canonize Bill Clinton.
Some of it’s strictly politics and popularity. Once you’ve voted for a fellow he’s your guy and can do no harm — or at least shouldn’t be regarded as doing any — unless he’s done something horrendous like sleep with your wife and, with this president, husbands are advised to check their wives activities and the whereabouts of our national gadabout.
Some, for fear of being hypocritical, won’t comment or judge. As Saint Paul said, we all fall short of the glory of God, so who are we to evaluate others, especially our national standard bearer.
That’s one reason I haven’t lambasted our obviously boorish and lascivious leader. My past (and current) sins can measure up (or down) to the best (or worst) of them.
I’d be judged so imperfect if all my transgressions were known that I wouldn’t even be elected dog catcher assigned exclusively to rounding up rabid Rottweilers.
Enough about me. Sure, nobody’s perfect. Nobody’s a saint. But must we accept public figures who appear to march to their own personally-designed morality and work diligently to avoid or obfuscate accountability?
So what kind of leader should we expect? To which standards should she or he aspire? We can consult the world’s best selling book — the Bible — and see what it has to say. We’re fortunate, for it speaks plainly about a leader’s attributes.
Let’s look at Titus 1:6-9 and measure Bill Clinton against that yardstick.
“An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife [he’s done better than most here], a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient [by all accounts, Chelsea is a wonderful girl].
Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless — not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain [Whitewater?].
Rather he must be hospitable [for sure], one who loves what is good [blondes, brunettes], who is self-controlled [no Big Macs for past 5 years], upright [over six foot tall], holy and disciplined [doesn’t let scandals interfere with governing].
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”
There you have it. What a job description. I certainly don’t meet those tests and that’s why I declined my congregation’s invitation years ago to be one of its elders. Perhaps I should have gone into politics.
Only a special person is qualified to be entrusted with guiding her fellow citizens. It may be an extremely hard test, but is it inappropriate?
Just because few can pass this test doesn’t mean we should discard it, lower the bar, or fall away from these high behavioral principles. Our leaders must exhort us to be our best. To do that they must be our best. They must show us the right way and help us overcome obstacles that entice us away from it. They shouldn’t promulgate perfidy.
Of course, those who preach separation of church and state will be quick to counter that the head of government need not adhere to a religious leader’s standards.
Why not? Don’t even atheists and agnostics believe that murder and theft are abominations? How and why can they — or even liberal-minded believers — choose to dismiss the virtue in not committing adultery, coveting someone’s spouse, or lying? Such an issue merits careful introspection.
The ultimate test of any leader is whether her or his charges willingly follow where led. Will you follow Bill Clinton?
++++
Approximately 710 words.
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
© 1998