My Earliest Political Memory
My earliest political memory is a discussion I had with Eggbert, the talking egg. For those of you without the privilege of growing up in New York’s lower Hudson Valley, Eggbert is a royal egg who comes out every holiday season to greet the children (and their parents) who visit Devitt’s Nursery and Supply. Through a camera and speaker cleverly hidden within his throne, Eggbert can talk to the children, ask what they want for Christmas, and even tell jokes. No Christmas tree is complete without an ornament of Eggbert hanging from one of the prominent branches, and now you can purchase cans of Angry Eggbert IPAs from the local Newburgh Brewing Co. Suffice to say, Eggbert is basically a celebrity.
So that’s why, in December of 1998, I proudly walked up to Eggbert and asked him, “Eggbert, what do you think of the ‘Clinton crisis?'” You see, while I had just turned 8, I was already interested in politics, and I had absorbed some of the key details of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. I didn’t know what sex was, but I definitely knew what lying was. Whether from my evangelical church, my Christian school, or my parents, it sounded like President Clinton’s actions were really, really bad, and I was transfixed by the idea that he might be removed from office.
I lament to say that I can’t remember Eggbert’s reply to my earnest question. But the moment stuck with me, and I’ve continued to be fascinated by politics ever since.
Evangelicals’ Rationale for Impeachment in 1998
From my perspective as an evangelical Christian looking back at the impeachment of Bill Clinton, there seemed to be two main issues conservative Christians had against him. By and large, they argued on the basis of morality, saying:
- A President who told lies was not fit for leading the nation. As evangelical magazine Christianity Today wrote in 1998, “The President’s failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair.”
- A President who cheated on his wife showed a lack of character. Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family wrote: “Character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it.”
Moral Hypocrisy?
In 1998, Bill Clinton apologized for his indiscretions, the Democrats swept the midterms, and the Senate voted along party lines not to remove him from office. While Republicans were upset, it seemed that they had proven themselves the party of integrity, of truth-telling, of morality, and of character.
Much has been written about the fact that now, just a few elections later, most of the same evangelicals who lambasted Clinton’s sins have rallied behind Donald Trump. Trump, of course, has violated all three of his marriage vows, lies frequently, and despite all that, has said he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness. Some evangelicals justify their strong support for Trump with claims that he has truly repented and changed, but to me it feels hard to see evidence of that. Instead, evangelical support looks like moral hypocrisy, a partisan shift of values to justify voting for a candidate they wanted in office. The data seems to back this up:
In 2011, only 30 percent of white evangelicals said that an “elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” In 2016, that number skyrocketed to 72%.
PRRI/Brookings
Obviously, not all evangelicals strongly support Trump: “If I were to support, much less endorse, Donald Trump for president,” conservative theologian Dr. Albert Mohler says, “I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton.” Moreover, while the data indicates that White evangelicals remain staunchly in favor of the president, the support drops dramatically among evangelicals who are Black, Hispanic, or other ethnicities. Regardless, the level of evangelical support for Trump is striking.
How this feels different from 1998
One could argue that the charge of hypocrisy points both ways: In 1998 Democrats opposed impeachment while Republicans supported it, and now it’s the other way around. Neither party has been wholly consistent when it comes to concern for a president’s morality; partisanship is a two-way street.
The key difference I see, however, are the differences in the rationale for the impeachment. In 1998, the main crimes Bill Clinton were accused of involved sexual misconduct and lying under oath. Republicans argued that while these merely involved Clinton’s personal wrongdoing, such private actions disqualified him from public leadership. And maybe they were right.
But right now, Democrats are not impeaching Trump for his personal moral failings, egregious as they may be; they’re making the impeachment argument much bigger. For Democrats, impeaching Donald Trump is a matter of defending the Constitution, saving the 2020 election from cheating, keeping the Executive Branch from taking too much power, and preventing Russia from having malignant influence in American affairs. And unlike Bill Clinton who asked for forgiveness in 1998, Trump still claims his behavior is “perfect,” and seems willing to keep doing it.
In 1998, a significant number of Democrats crossed party lines to investigate and impeach Bill Clinton. There is virtually no chance that Republicans will do the same to Donald Trump today; indeed they seem unwilling to even allow witnesses to publicly testify. The increase in our country’s partisanship, driven by gerrymandering, social media algorithms, and straight-up bias, has unfortunately led us to a situation where a politician who dares to show an iota of character will be relentlessly criticized if they dare to go against their party line (Check out these replies to Republican Matt Gaetz when he voted with Democrats on a nonbinding War Powers resolution). Meanwhile, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, the Executive Branch has consolidated more and more power, while Congress bickers over proper procedure.
I’m really not sure what the ultimate result of the current impeachment trial will be. It seems likely the Senate will acquit Trump, but it’s an open question as to whether the impeachment process will hurt his odds of reelection or not. Sadly, even if the full truth comes out during the Senate trial, it’s far less likely that people will believe it than in 1998: in our postmodern era, people are deeply entrenched into their political biases and automatically reject any evidence that goes against it. The most likely result is that, if acquitted, President Trump and his associates will be emboldened to continue using the office of the presidency for personal gain, and to continue lying to protect themselves. In 1998, Bill Clinton seemed chastened and publicly apologized, concluding his presidency without further scandal. I hope for the best, but I fear the opposite will happen with our current president.
