Today, someone brought up the argument that Bill Clinton's questionable morals helped bring about financial dishonesty on the Enron/WorldCom level....
The argument (as I heard it) claims that, as a leader, Clinton's seemingly lax morals affected the moral leanings of the people, and that his apparent escape from punishment encouraged corporate finaglers to believe that they too could get away with scandal. In short, the coming out of Clinton's private affairs opened an ethic-free free-for-all that led to the corporate dishonesty we're dealing with now.
I hope that either there's more to this argument that wasn't relayed to me or that it never flies. I'd hate to think that we live in a society where such red herrings (thanks Bob!) are considered worthwhile debate, or that such heinous dishonesty could be portrayed as a result of social victimization.
The continued Clinton-bashing alone makes the argument less than newsworthy, but this lame effort at passing the blame and denying acountability is just too much to swallow. We're still a world of individuals, accountable for our own actions and responsible for the consequences, right? Right!?
Posted by jenna at July 11, 2002 08:19 PMI agree. Seems completely illogical to state that one man's philandering leads to another man's thievery. Another problem is the naivety the argument exposes. Historically, men in power have kept mistresses, and traditionally, those who run big businesses will do everything they can to make more dollars, including abridging, or dismissing altogether, ethics. We just happen to talk more about it now. Why? Politicization and muckraking?
Where can I read the article?
Posted by: Bob at July 15, 2002 03:12 AMI've been hunting high & low for a source. I heard about this statement at the water cooler, so to speak, & all I knew at the time was that it was on a "news show"--I imagined a press conference, or something of that sort.
After some digging, though, I think I've figured out that it came from Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council on a recent episode of "Politically Incorrect" ( transcript here).
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be just a flippant statement thrown out in an informal debate.
Posted by: jenna at July 15, 2002 07:36 PM