Spin Hides Democrats' Intolerance
August 21, 2000
By Henry Payne
Copyright 2000 The Detroit News

From its Los Angeles pulpit last week, the Democratic Party sermonized on diversity. What differentiates Democrats from Republicans, they emphasized, is a commitment to equal opportunity regardless of race or gender. As President Bill Clinton declared in his swan-song speech, eight years of a Democratic presidency has made America "more tolerant, more decent and more united."

In truth, Democrats' tolerance for political corruption has made the party flagrantly intolerant. For eight ugly years, Washington's Democratic leadership has waged war against women and minorities who have threatened their hold on power.

As Clinton takes his final bow, America is strewn with the crippled lives of Americans victimized by a party that has sacrificed civil rights principles for political power.

The Principle of Women's Rights. Although Washington's press corps parrots the Clinton spin that he was impeached for "an affair with a White House intern" (as the New York Times put it this week), the Lewinsky scandal centered around allegations of perjury in a sexual harassment suit. Remember sexual harassment? It was once a cornerstone of the Democratic agenda.

On the 1992 campaign trail, Hillary Clinton appeared with Anita Hill and declared that "we must never again be shy in raising our voices against harassment." But when a lowly Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones told a credible tale - backed by witnesses - of her harassment by Gov. Bill Clinton, the Democratic machine cranked up to crush this "white trash" nuisance. "Drag $100 through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll find," sneered Clinton-aide James Carville. Where principle once argued that liberals should support a woman of little means in her fight against the powerful, Democrats instead tittered at jokes about Jones' physical appearance.

The Principle of Equality in the Workplace. Ironically, Monica Lewinsky would not have figured in the Jones case had the Clintons not championed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The act expanded federal sexual harassment law by enabling lawyers to delve deeply into a defendant's sex life. Democrats believed this necessary to corner pigs in the boardroom. In practice, it caught the pig in the Oval Office.

Washington's media delicately refer to the Clinton/Lewinsky relationship as an "adulterous affair." In fact, Clinton viewed Lewinsky as a young groupie he could invite to the White House for sex whenever he felt the urge. Working as a White House intern is a unique career-enhancing opportunity. But feminists didn't seem to mind that Lewinsky got her big break in return for sexual favors. You've come a long way, baby?

Worse, when the relationship was exposed, Clinton not only denied it but orchestrated a smear campaign, characterizing Lewinsky as a "stalker" who fantasized about sex with the president. If the stained blue dress had never surfaced, this is the monstrous story line the White House would have continued pedaling.

Not a single female Democratic representative rose to demand the president's resignation for this behavior. Not Senator Feinstein. Not Senator Boxer. Not Senator Mikulski. Not one.

The Principle of Gay Rights. Shortly after Ken Starr took up the Lewinsky matter in 1998, reporters began receiving calls from Sidney Blumenthal, White House media counselor and a close aide to Hillary Clinton, encouraging them to "out" an allegedly gay member of Starr's staff. Starr's office subsequently received nearly 100 calls from reporters, contributing to Starr's decision to subpoena Blumenthal since it is a violation of federal law to "influence, intimidate or impede. . . any officer in or out of the court of the United States."

Not a single Washington Democrat raised a voice against these anti-gay blackmail tactics.

The Principle of Inclusion. Demanding a privilege that no other citizen has, Clinton in 1997 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant him temporary immunity from prosecution, which would have denied Jones her right to a speedy trial. The court, including conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, denied the request.

Thomas, the highest ranking black jurist in America, has been demonized by Democrats and the media because he doesn't "think black." As Jack White, a liberal journalist for Time magazine, put it: "he may not consider himself an intellectual slave, but he has been lavishly rewarded for serving a particular political master."

In 1995, Democratic civil rights leaders marched on Thomas' home to protest his views on affirmative action. Thomas was variously denounced as "an Oreo cookie," "a disgrace to the Negro race," "wide-nosed, big-jawed and big-eared," and unflattering references were made about his marriage to a white woman.

Al Sharpton, summed the day up this way: "I remember growing up reading Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's cabin.' Now I get to see it." And how has the Democratic Party greeted this slur of a sitting Supreme Court justice? This spring, Gore, Bill Bradley, and Hillary Clinton all embraced Sharpton and courted his support.

Such intolerance toward blacks who think differently is commonplace among Democrats. Gary Franks, a former black Republican congressman, was denounced by Bill Clay, a black Democratic congressman from Missouri, as a "foot-shuffling, head-scratching Amos 'n' Andy." Clay led the Missouri delegation in Los Angeles this week.

The Democratic convention's embrace of welfare reform and balanced budgets - positions reluctantly taken only after Republicans made them a priority in the 1994 Contract With America - is a political ploy. But as the Clinton era has sadly exposed, the Democrat's commitment to their core values of civil rights and women's issues is just as shallow.

Democrats still offer a legitimate choice to voters on issues like abortion and gun control. But the Clinton/Gore years have seen the party compromise other ideals to assure that they stay in office. For eight years, Democrats have proven that the goal of liberal politics is not individual rights, but keeping power.