Dialogue on Reagan Vs. Clinton Scandals

Here's a dialogue (originally email) that I carried on with a conservative friend of mine over whether Reagan's or Clinton's administrations were more corrupt. My part is in red. I broke his original email into parts to which I responded.

**********

Would you agree with me that the scandals in Reagan's administration, principally the Iran-Contra affair, should be more disturbing to a concerned citizen, and are potentially more damaging to democracy, than the scandals of Clinton, i.e., Whitewater and the Lewinksy affair? If not, why not?

Don't think so. Iran/Contra was the pursuit of reasonable policy goals (encouragement of moderate elements in Iran and resistance to a Cuban satellite in Nicaragua) by ill-advised means.

"ill-advised"? Don't you mean "illegal"? Fourteen people in Reagan's government were charged with criminal violations, of which thirteen were convicted, including Robert McFarlane (Reagan's National Security Advisor), John Poindexter (McFarlane's one-time deputy and short-lived replacement as Reagan's National Security Advisor), and Caspar Weinberger (Reagan's Secretary of Defense). They may have been "reasonable policy goals" for some--the point is that, after Congress passed the Boland Amendment, it was illegal to pursue them through the financial scheme that Reagan's cabinet concocted. And it was of course illegal to lie to Congress about what happened. Reagan's top cabinet members violated the law, lied to Congress about it, and they were found guilty in federal court. Case closed.

Reagan's general support for such goals could have surprised no one who was paying attention during his first term, on the basis of which he was returned for a second with historic electoral margins.

So the will of the people is more important than the letter of the law? By that reckoning Gore should be president.

The ensuing fight was between the democratically elected executive and the democratically elected legislature over who had constitutional authority to set policy for Latin America.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here: A "fight" about who had "constitutional authority to set policy"? Are you referring to the debate that took place between the Administration and Congress over policy in Nicaragua prior to Iran-Contra crimes? Or are you referring to the defense that was used in court?

Sure enough, when the executive overreached, the legislative branch exercised its oversight function and gave Reagan a black eye before then reversing its prohibition of aid to the Nicaraguan resistance. That's how democracies function.

"executive overreached"? Earlier you used "by ill-advised means". Why not "cabinet members committed a crime" and "by illegal, or criminal, means"? Does this mean you disagree with the guilty verdicts? And if so, which ones? The ones based on violation of the Boland Amendment, or the ones based on obstruction of justice?

"That's how democracies function". Well, yes, the same conclusion could be drawn from the events of Watergate. The system ultimately worked, so to speak, but it doesn't follow that, thereby, no damage is done. Most of those convicted in Iran-Contra, several after being pardoned in the last gasp of GHW Bush's presidency, have gone on to other political, lucrative consulting, and even, in the case of Oliver North, media careers (Fox of course). To me that sends a big message to the people: "It's who ya know baby!" Everyone who watches The Sopranos on HBO knows that if you're willing to keep your mouth shut and not rat out your friends, you'll be taken care of. Does the aftermath of Iran-Contra bespeak of the success of democratic values or, ahem, "fam-uh-lee" values?

Whitewater was troubling in that it opened the head of the executive branch to pressure from past associates who might be in a position to blackmail him.

This POSSIBILITY just doesn't concern me as much as ACTUAL criminal activity on the part of Cabinet members and other high-level officials in Reagan's Administration.

Zippergate was troubling not only in virtue of its blackmail possibilities (if I'd been a foreign agent I'd sure have been trying to get my hooks into Clinton through one of his women)

How would this play out? I don't read spy novels so it's hard for me to imagine. A Chinese agent appears at local D.C. bar to make contact with Monica Lewinsky. The agent: "Ms. Lewinsky, if you perform oral sex on President we give you Sax Fifth Avenue charge card. But you ask him first about location of nuclear submarine. Do not let him distract you with poetry of Walt Whitman. Walt Whitman no like women anyway!" Okay, sorry, bad joke, I'll keep the day job. But, am I careless for just NOT BEING ABLE TO IMAGINE A SCENARIO THAT I CAN TAKE SERIOUSLY in response to this concern?

but also in its revelation that the President lacked common decency (receiving sexual favors from a woman who could have been his daughter)

See, this is exactly where terms like "ill-advised" or "overreached" (lol! sorry) seem to apply to me.

but also that he had such disdain for the law that he would lie under oath to preserve the secrecy of his relationship with her.

Yes, it was an ugly and an illegal lie, I won't pull any punches with my sweetheart president. Did it hurt democracy? Yep. I admit it. It made people even more cynical, and reinforced the public's notion that to get out of your just deserts all you need, or need to be, is a good lawyer. But if Monica had been paying him for the privilege and he had been using that money to fund a covert national healthcare... okay, my jokes are stupid I know.

And I wonder how many American's really believed that Reagan, as he said under oath, couldn't remember.

I think the biggest scandal of the Clinton administration is the one you don't mention: the willingness to court money laundered from abroad and open the White House to influence by undeclared agents of a foreign power.

I got three words for you: The Family Saud.

Again, for all the Keystone Kops flavor of Iran-Contra, I'll take Reagan.

Ah yes those wacky Keystone Kops--did I miss the circus where they were convicted of obstruction, tax fraud, conspiracy to defraud the US, and perjury?