Death Of Outrage Essay Example For Students

Death Of Outrage Essay William J. Bennett, secretary of education and chair of the National Endowmentfor the Humanities under President Reagan captured the public imagination withthe best-selling Book of Virtues, a compendium of other peoples writing thathad something to teach about morality. In his new book, Bennett advances his owncredo of right and wrong, and it is far less compelling. It is a slim book witha correspondingly slim premise: that the American publics failure to beoutraged at President Clintons lies about his private life is evidence of ourmoral and intellectual disarmament. The book has six brief chapterswith the grandiose titles Sex (first of course),Character, Politics, Law,Judgment ? and Ken Starr. Each chapter presents anitalicized Defense of President Clinton followed by Bennettsrefutation of that defense. Claiming to exercise sound reasoning,Bennett sets himself up as the arbiter of morality and American ideals. Theresult reads like a partisan screed. Bennett is outraged because so m anyAmericans are not outraged at the president, even if they believe that theallegations of sexual and criminal wrongdoing are true. Combiningthe words sexual and criminal is at the heart of Bennetts thesis? and his linguistic sleight of hand. Many people do not endorse thecriminalization of consensual sex. Bennett may not like this, but that does notmake him any more morals than they do. One might argue, in fact, that it evincesa higher moral sense to distinguish between covering up crimes and a situationin which the only crime is the cover-up. Bennett repeatedly refers tocrimes, felony crimes, criminal conduct, 284words criminal allegations, criminal wrongdoing,criminal conspiracy, and criminal cover-up ?accusation by accretion and repetition rather than reason. Ah, words words. Bennetts language reveals a pervasive double standard. Defenses of Clinton arethe words of hired guns, spinners and partisans. He attributes thearguments he refutes to Clinton defenders, Clintonloyalists, Clinton apologists, and feminists. (Wedo not read of Starr defenders, loyalists or apologists, or of Clintonattackers, haters or enemies.) All these label great, but the wordapologist is particularly underhanded: It reframes explanations anddefenses as apologies, implying unspecified misdeeds. In Starr, Bennett seesonly clumsiness, missteps, lapses of politicaljudgment and a certain tone-deafness. Ignoring criticism ofStarr from a wide variety of sources, including former special prosecutors andindependent counsels from both parties, he blames Starrs low popularity ona well-orchestrated and relentless smear campaign ? even as hedismisses Hillary Clintons reference to a vast right-wingconspiracy against her husband as fantastic. Bennettssubstitution of implication for reasoning is pa rticularly evident in an appendixthat juxtaposes statements made about Watergate with statements made about thecurrent scandals: for example, quotes by both Nixon and Clinton that they wouldlike to get on with the job of running the country. These juxtapositions implythat the substance of the scandals is comparable. But the most revealingcomparison with Watergate actually comes early in the book: Bennett suggests athought experiment which describes moves that actually occurred inWatergate as if they had covered up a sexual liaison ? actions such asbreaking into a psychiatrists office in search of information to discredit awitness, pressuring the IRS to investigate reporters, and establishing aslush fund to pay hush money. Bennetts purpose is to 320 words ask,If we are willing to forgive Clintons lying to cover up a sexual affair, wouldwe excuse any misbehavior on those grounds? But the section actually has theeffect of dramatizing how much more egregious the events of Watergate were . There are other instances in which Bennetts examples support the opposite ofwhat he supposes. He writes, Interpreting the actions of a presidentsolely through a legal prism habituates Americans to think like lawyers insteadof citizens . . .. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have abeneficial influence on society. But in this spirit, legal terms likeobstruction of justice and suborning of perjury conjureup, in most peoples minds, matters far more weighty than engaging in and tryingto cover up illicit sex. In rejecting this legal prism, manyAmericans are thinking like citizens rather than lawyers. Faulty, slippery slopearguments abound. For example, after quoting citizens who said, of Clintonssexual behavior, Who are we to judge? Bennett writes, Withoutbeing judgmental, Americans would never have put an end to slavery, outlawedchild labor, emancipated women, or ushered in the civil rights movement.But the distinction between private acts like having sex and public offense slike slavery, child labor, and forbidding women and blacks to vote is preciselythe distinction many Americans are making ? and it is a highly moral one. .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 , .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .postImageUrl , .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 , .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:hover , .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:visited , .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:active { border:0!important; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:active , .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8 .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u28500bbc3630a682ee9918e06e004eb8:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Computer, Internet, Privacy INTERNET REGULATION: POLICING CYBERSPACE T EssayBennett displays contempt for average Americans, calling us fools because we donot view the president the same way he does. Rather than seeking to understandthe moral underpinnings of positions others take, he dismisses them as debased,lacking in morality. The people may be the wiser ones when they refuse to reducecomplex notions of character and morality to personalsexual conduct. How about the morality of a country as wealthy as the UnitedStates being the only modern industrialized society that does not provideuniversal 308 words health-care coverage to all its citizens? Or the morality ofthe eve r widening gap between rich and poor? In this light, when voters say theycare more about the economy or health care than about Monica Lewinsky, they arenot just expressing petty self-interest; they are also taking moral stances. Tomy mind and perhaps to the minds of those Bennett deplores, the real moralquestion is not: Did he or didnt he have sex/ lie about it/ apologize for it,but How have we all participated in and been sullied by a political, legal andjournalistic system that has focused public attention on the presidents privatelife rather than the many problems facing the country and the world? Many whorefuse to support the presidents impeachment do not defend his sexual behavior. They just say that this behavior should not be the object of an expensiveinvestigation and media coverage. Bennetts diatribe is unfair because it isunbalanced. He blames only Clinton, and rejects or ignores any roles played byothers. The public is not incapable of outrage; they simply have differentobjects for it than Bennett would like them to. There is plenty of outrage atLinda Tripps betrayal of friendship when she (illegally) taped conversationswith Monica Lewinsky and turned them over to lawyers deposing Clinton, leadingto his denials that constitute the much-touted lying under oath, butthis does not count as morality for Bennett; instead, it irritates him. Why all the venom directed at Ms. Tripp? he asks. Many also feeloutrage at the pouring of public funds into an independent counsel investigationthat moved far afield from the Whitewater events it was initially charged withinvestigating. When allegations against the president reached a crescendo, sodid his approval ratings. Bennett sees this as indifference, which he bemoans,as an abandonment of longstanding 317 words American ideals. But theapproval ratings didnt just stay the same; they shot up. This is not a sign ofindifference. It is a backlash, an expression of outrage against what I callthe argument culture ? relentless attacks on figures like thepresident by political opponents and the press. There are many who agree withBennett that no president should be above the law, but also feelthat a president should not be pursued with laws that would not be applied toother citizens. Such sentiments uphold the longstanding American ideal offairness. Bennett sees the public giving licens e not only to Mr. Clintonscorruption but possibly to our own as well. But jumping on the bandwagonof denunciation gives license to future overzealous prosecutors, civillitigants, and political opponents to try to destroy leaders they dislike bylaunching assaults on their private lives and character rather than debatingthem on the issues. According to critics dont look for President Clintonspicture in The Book of Virtues; best-selling author and former Secretary ofEducation William J. Bennett considers Bill Clinton uniquely unvirtuous. In thewake of the White House intern sex scandal, Bennett accuses Clinton of crimes atleast as serious as those committed by Richard Nixon during the Watergateimbroglio. Rising above anti-Clinton polemics, The Death or Outrage urges theAmerican publicwhich initially displayed not much more than a collectiveshrugto take issue with the presidents private and public conduct. Clintonshould be judged by more than the state of the economy, implores Bennett. Thecommander in chief sets the moral tone of the nation; a reckless personal lifeand repeated lying from the bully pulpit call for a heavy sanction. The Americanpeople should demand nothing less, says the onetime federal drug czar. In eachchapter, Bennett lays out the rhetorical defenses made on Clintons behalf (thecase against him is only about 279 words sex, harsh judgmentalismhas no place in modern society, independent counsel Kenneth Starr is a partisanprosecutor, etc.) and picks them apart. He may not convince everybody, but thisis an effective conservative brief against Bill Clinton Today we see littlepublic outrage about Bill Clintons misconduct. With enormous skill, thepresident and his advisors have constructed a defensive wall built of bricksleft over from Watergate: diversion, half-truth, equivocation, and sophistry. Itis a wall that has remained unbreached. Until now. In The Death of Outrage: BillClinton and the Assault on American Ideals, former cabinet secretary andbes t-selling author William J. Bennett dismantles the presidents defenses,brick by evasive brick, and analyzes the meaning of the Clinton scandals: whythey matter, what the public reaction to them means, and the social andpolitical damage they have already inflicted on America.