Date of publication: January 15, 1999
|
Get your signed copy of The NEW Why Teams Don't Work by Mike & Harvey Robbins from Berrett-Koehler Publishers Just click on the book cover! A fully revised second edition of this award-winning classic by Harvey Robbins and Michael Finley Paperback
Winner, Financial Times/Booz Allen & Hamilton Global Business Book Award, Best Management Book - The Americas, 1995
|
"Lots of us find it a very helpful, human, sometimes humorous, always interesting, often surprising column that has no peer on the freelance market, And, yes, you can use that as a
testimonial if it helps." "No one talks about the ups and downs of technology like Michael Finley. See his columns online at www.mfinley.com/. -- James S. Derk, Evansville (IN) Courier
Comments on the site (especially interested in opinions on PayPal, the Amazon tip jar, and Microsoft Reader e-books.)
Comments on this column:
Therefore, let me propose a Constitutional amendment:
“All members of the House and all members of the Senate shall stand for
reelection within six months after the impeachment of the President of the
United States occurs.”
The Congress must be the servant of the people of the United States.
Jon Stopa
As a boy I lived across the street from the church built and pastered by my grandfather. I sat through endless sermons then -- enough for a lifetime. I have developed a strong aversion to being a captive listener when some self important person speaks unctuous.
Nevertheless I listened some to the house members speaking during the Senate trial this week. A few actually had something worthwhile to say regarding the fine points of law re perjury and obstruction, but most were like the preachers I recall from my childhood -- terminally boring. No wonder the public is averse to listening.
Earlier today I listened to one delivering a sermon on morality in government. Maybe the Senate needs to be instructed on morality. The Senate rules forbid panning the video camera so that people can see just how attentive the Senators are as this stupifying speach making goes on.
Clearly the Republicans are speaking not to the Senate, but to the general public. Having watched the polls, they know the public is against what they are doing. So, they are trying to make the case that the Republicans are statesmen not simply partisan ideologues. If they could curtail their impulse to grandstand and make needlessly redundant sermons, they just might succeed. As it is, no one with good sense is listening to them.
I was a Boy Scout and after finishing college a Naval officer. In both cases I was taught not to lie. I still think that other than for socially necessary white lies, truth telling is fundamentally necessary to civilization. What astonishes me is that my own children and most others seem to think that it is OK for Clinton to lie if it is simply to prevent disclosure of an embarrassing sex affair with a subordinate.
What a double standard. The leading contender for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was disqualified because he had an affair with a woman after he separated from his wife and before his divorce. He did not lie about the matter and it was a long time ago.
If I had any linger doubts that most Congressmen are jerks, listening to each and every congressman consume his quota of speechifying time before the impeachment vote was pretty convincing. Most of them emoted till the bitter end of their time allotment.. Like Clinton they just couldn't resist the urge when the opportunity was there to orate. Unfortunately none of them was an orator. If they are lucky their constituents weren't listening.
These are the guys who resist term limits, campaign fund raising reform, vote for needless B-2 Bombers, dote on pork, keep unneeded bases open, underpay the military, etc.
I can think of no one that has been involved who looks better than before.
John Pittman
You wrote "But impeachment, to me, was an effort to intercede
constitutionally and overthrow an election, for offenses that had no
particular effect on the nation's prospects and that could easily be
remedied in a civil court."
That's a reasonable point of view. But the problem is, when Paula Jones
sought her remedy in civil court, the President -- sworn defender of the
Constitution and himself an officer of the court -- lied under oath and
tried to subvert the justice system (one example: coaching Betty Currie
regarding testimony). He put himself above the law. That is why he is not
fit to be President.
Unfortunately, some people can't understand that, so they go around saying
he should be impeached for the "disgusting" things he did with Monica
Lewinsky. Even though I twice declined to vote for Clinton, I agree that
cheating on his wife or any particular consenting sex acts done with
Monica are not grounds for impeachment. His attempts to deny an American
citizen her day in court and access to the Judicial system -- to save his
own reputation and pocketbook -- are grounds for impeachment.
Thanks for listening, and keep up the good work!
D.D.
"Be an apoligist for Bill Clinton if you will. And look for a way to
justify his transgressions ( and yours ) if you need. But please do not
forget or discount the people you have hurt and destroyed in the process
for your personal gratification.
You aren't going to hell, you are living it...without conscious."
Perhaps he should just hold on until there are no other Republicans left
standing. Nothing like a wimp with backbone to really drive bullies up
the wall.
CP
Personally, I knew Bill Clinton was a sleeze ball when I first laid
eyes on him, heard him speak, and watched his insincere facial
expressions. It was, and is, all an act, meant to deceive rather
than give us true insight into his soul. Kind of like that mother
that killed her baby by rolling her car into a lake, then blaming it on a
kidnapper. All the while you just know they are lying. Trouble is, I
have more respect for that mother now, after admitting her guilt, than I
do for the man who continues to stonewall and pretend that he is more
important to us "running the country" than abiding by its laws.
I recognize that I may indeed be too "harsh," and perhaps some day I will
forgive. For now, and for me, he is not the type of individual that I
want running my country under any circumstances. I cannot trust him and
shudder to think of the decisions he has made or will make to augment his
tarnished stature in American history.
John D.
The Impeachment of President, Clinton if successful, will make the U.S.
government more like a parlimentary government. If congress can bring the
government down over such trivial reason, I believe we should addopt the
parlimentary system of confirming elections that occur after a vote of no
confidence.
i was really impressed with this article. i think in this one article you
explained more clearly what is going on with bill clinton than anything i
have heard to date. it also let me add another explanation to my growing
basket of them on why the american population still wants him to be
president. living here in germany i do need a huge basket of them since
that is what everyone wants to hear about. now i just hope my five months
of german will let me translate it clearly enough!
brenna b.
Your analysis of Clinton and explanation of his character defects is the best and most convincing I have read.
If you find in the future you have the strength to once again consider the
impeachment issue, please consider this.
(editor, Belvidere Daily Republican)
Your ID with Clinton is charming. What if the attacks on him have nothing
to do with him and everything to do with his attackers? Could they be
attacking him because he dared to surrender to a need for affection? Isn't
it all projection? Where else but in a nation of divorced adulterers could
marrital infidelity be a capital {impeachable} crime? Isn't this people
with a libido v people without?
While I respect your opinion, I can neither abide Bill Clinton nor
his actions. I honestly believe that the American people are not
asking too much of their leaders to live up to our moral
expectations. While we may in fact be cynics, through our
indiscretions, secretly we cling to some moral code of conduct,
perhaps as a means of reconciliation or the promise of it.
![[IMAGE]](http://mfinley.com/gif/finley.gif)
I just got my author's copies of a new book from Financial Times Management (London), MASTERS OF THE WIRED WORLD: Cyberspace Speaks Out.What's remarkable is that this collection of manifestos about the new age a'dawning contains proclamations by Tony Blair, Al Gore, Charles Handy, Nicholas Negroponte, Arthur C. Clarke, Alvin Toffler ... and me.
I got more response, and more passionate response, from my column last week about the emotional impact of the impeachment proceedings than anything I've written in a long time. Even my agent liked it.
Which was odd, because I felt like there was something missing in it. It didn't cut deep enough. In the feedback that followed, I found myself sliding into the same old positions heard a thousand times already, about constitutional coups and impeachable offenses. None of that interests me any more.
So what was really bugging me? I'll tell you. But this is an exercise in psychohistory, so if that ain't your cup of tea, turn the page now.
Without approving of President Clinton's actions, I think I identify like crazy with him. For reasons having nothing to do with politics, and everything with feeling alone in the world.
Clinton's father died before he was born, and he was raised without much sense of fatherly guidance, in a not-quite-respectable home. By nature he was idealistic, ambitious, and vain. With little household discipline to reign him in, he indulged his natural recklessness. More often than not, it paid off for him. He impressed the hell out of nearly everyone he met, girls included.
Except for the girls part, much of the same is true of me. My father, a reckless man in his own way, left home when I was young, and wasn't around much before that. I, too, grew up with a head full of vain fantasies, and a life of bad habits. You want to dazzle the whole world, as if to tell your dad, "See, I was worth sticking around for."
The problem is this: while many people will find your recklessness, born of fatherlessness, charming, many more will feel you are constantly breaking the rules their fathers instilled in them. And thumbing your nose at them.
And they are right. It is good to have a sense of limits. And bad, real bad, to think the rules don't apply to you. When you flout the law, you may be crying out, deep down, for your father to return from wherever he has gone, and deal with you. But not really. When strangers, people who are not your father, attempt to deal harshly with you, you revolt against the punishment. "You're not my father, you say. I don't have to listen to you."
What we are seeing right now is a public battle between the Tom Sawyer side of our nature (the wild, uninhibited, mischievous, and sexy) and the Aunt Polly side (the measured, orderly, restrained and controlling). Like Tom Sawyer and Aunt Polly, they are locked in perpetual struggle with one another, one side always trying to get away with something, the other forever trying to settle that boy down.
It reminds me of an old Lutheran poem:
If all good people were clever
But somehow it's seldom or never
And all clever people were good,
The world would be better than ever
We thought that it possible could.
The two get along as they should.
The good are so harsh to the clever,
The clever so rude to the good.
America has had very few Tom Sawyer presidents, and does not seem to want many. The main exception is the man Clinton chose to be his father figure, John Kennedy.
And it seems as if there is something in the American character that wants to stomp these upstart flowers to death. No family, prior to the Clintons, was ever as publicly reviled as the Kennedys on the political side, or as glamorized on the cultural side.
So I'm coming clean and identifying with Clinton's wayward nature. It is in the nature of this beast to be empathic, narcissistic, and protean-- all things to all people. It is not in his nature to grow up until he is quite old, or tenderized by pummeling.
That is my defense of him -- that his style, while not that of someone we want running the country during, say, a world war, might be a perfectly legitimate one to run the country every so often, especially during a time of irresolution and transition, such as we are now experiencing.
Clever people like Clinton think they can waltz up to the line of perjury and waltz back again. Harsh people jump up and down and say, "You came too close! You came too close!"
Oh my harsh friends, why can't we dance every now and then? Every time we mistakenly elect a boy to do a grown man's job, do we have to shoot him dead?
By the way, unlike Clinton, I was lucky enough to eventually catch up with my father. And he was not a bad sort at all. Though it was too late for him to set me aright.
He, like me, learned the error of his Tom Sawyer ways -- harsh people do that to you. He settled down, and stayed put. But inside he never changed. He once told me his philosophy of living: "All I ever wanted to do was make beautiful women laugh."
Hey, me, too, Pop. Me, too.
|
Get your signed copy of The NEW Why Teams Don't Work by Mike & Harvey Robbins from Berrett-Koehler Publishers Just click on the book cover! A fully revised second edition of this award-winning classic by Harvey Robbins and Michael Finley Paperback
Winner, Financial Times/Booz Allen & Hamilton Global Business Book Award, Best Management Book - The Americas, 1995
|
America's Best-Loved Futurist(TM), Michael Finley has a free gift for visitors to http://mfinley.com.
I enjoyed serving this essay up for you, and I did it for free. But I am a few clients lighter right now than I need to be, and a bit of revenue never hurts. If you'd like to contribute to this site, consider dropping a $1 tip in the "Honor Box" here. Think of it as a voluntary subscription. Just click the CLICK TO PAY image here. Thanks! - Mike
Total tips, year
to date: $203.00 - MANY THANKS!
