Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Monica? Bill? Who are they?

tom's picture

Atrios brings up the ubiquitous problem of the historical memory of undergraduates:

I spoke in an undergraduate class today. As a friend of mine has said a few times about her students, pretty soon you're going to have to explain to them what the Lewinsky scandal was. This isn't a comment on the quality of the students, just that the degree to which 19 year olds have shared cultural and historic experience with me is shrinking fast. Bush v. Gore happened when they were 11. What's recent history to me is a vague recollection for them.

As I discovered this over the last few years, I dropped 1990s references in my classes. If I make them, I have to give a rather detailed background discussion because they don't really remember Bill Clinton as president.

In fact, a year or so ago I was responding to a question in class that indirectly brought this subject up (I think it was a question about Johnson's impeachment) and I said -- with my usual measure of heavy sarcasm -- something like this:

Oh yeah. That's right. You're the kids so many "concerned Americans" were worried about back then. The cry at the time from enemies of Bill Clinton was "What will we tell the children? What will this do to the children?"

Well you know what? You guys seem to have turned out all right. First of all, you don't really remember it at all. I'm not sure who's at fault for that but it was such a bizarre and meaningless and utterly forgettable episode I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

Second, you folks seem to have adjusted to the post-Monica world pretty well. Despite the warnings of the sirens of the late 1990s, I don't see you guys pursuing riotous living and horrific personal habits any worse than anyone I knew during my college days. It's nice to know that was all so much silly bullshit.

It's good to see that Atrios has discovered that little factoid for himself. It's something those of us who've taught for the last 10 years or so already knew about. Honestly, I haven't had a student bring Clinton's impeachment up in class since about the year 2000 so these kids don't seem to remember this tawdry tale -- or if they do they have a very negative view of it.

I'm sure somewhere Tom DeLay is crying into his beer about "the decline of kids today" when he's asked about this little bit of historical amnesia. His greatest achievement as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives doesn't even register with college students today or, if it even does, it is viewed very negatively by them.

In a survey course I spend just as much time on the Clinton impeachment as I do on the Andrew Johnson impeachment which is to say I don't really talk about it. Quite frankly, given the range of potentially important historical topics, it's just not that important. I remember thinking at the time I'd be talking about it all the time but I scarcely have an opportunity to talk about it these days.

But this is not to say that the Lewinsky saga hasn't had rather major consequences that we're still having to live with. Too bad conservatives have cheapened impeachment to the point that it is viewed by the media and the next generation as a partisan tool and now, disturbingly in their eyes, conservative Republicans are now viewed as the last perpetrators of this form of partisan injustice.

The current administration has taken advantage of this development. We have a president and vice president who have both mightily deserved impeachment for about two years now. However, no one dares bring it up because it is now viewed as an illegitimate partisan tool.

And no, I don't think we should talk impeachment lightly. However, there have been few administrations in U.S. history who have deserved to be put to this indignity more than the Bush Administration.

The Monica debacle has essentially taken this rather useful curb on presidential power completely off the table for members of Congress.

And Dear Leader, George W. Bush, knows this -- and has taken advantage of it accordingly.

0
No votes yet

Comments

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

In fact, I think to some extant the congressional Republicans who insisted on impeaching Clinton knew they were inoculating themselves and a future Republican president from having to answer for any further accretions of executive power they might wish to gather.

What still astonishes me, though, and I admit that perhaps I should be astonished that I'm astonished, is the way the SCLM has insisted on ignoring the way the same Republican congress which impeached Bill Clinton consistently refused to hold the Bush administration to any form of accounting, no matter the frequencies and the grotesque nature of the depredations committed against the "rule of law."

And yet, whenever that same press talks about the Clintons, it's always with the full implications of the so-called Clinton scandals, which, except for Monica, weren't scandals of any sort, still assumed.

And nothing has been more depressing than to see so many so-called Democrats who claim to be Obama supporters repeat all the same old lies and distortions as if they were established fact.

tedraicer's picture
Submitted by tedraicer on

>And nothing has been more depressing than to see so many so-called Democrats who claim to be Obama supporters repeat all the same old lies and distortions as if they were established fact.

Look, Bill and Hillary must be Evil, or they wouldn't be making things so hard on the Annointed One. Obama is All-Good, so those who don't worship at his shrine are clearly in league with the Devil, and Monica was simply a virgin (sort of) Bill sacrificed to Lucifer. Surely this is obvious?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

but she blew it.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Pretty much anything I wanted to!

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

Bluegrass Poet's picture
Submitted by Bluegrass Poet on

that Ronald Reagan was a saint.

When Barack Obama nods to Reagan, I think it means something totally different to the kids who support him than it does to folk like me who remember when once we had powerful unions and a decent wage for decent jobs, not to mention healthcare and retirment funds.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

"Mean something totally different."

And that's a problem...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

[pounds forehead on desk, over and over and over]

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

to hear Obama admonish Clinton for attacking him with right wing talking points(during the same speech as the Annie Oakley remark) about god and guns, when that is all he has done all primary season, ie Reagan, etc.

And when I watched that speech, his attitude about it seemed so forced, like "six shooter, huh huh". He laughed at it, but his audience didn't. It was kind of sad.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Bluegrass Poet's picture
Submitted by Bluegrass Poet on

but decided I'd nevertheless stated the obvious. Please don't pound your head. I promise I'm not tone deaf.

Well, not always...

I'll get the hang of this group thing one of these days.

Turlock