Leftist leaders have always maintained a precarious relationship with the fickle fanatics required to propel their careers. A canny politician rides the left up to power, and then typically down its esophagus as tastes change. No matter how much you enrich or advance the hyena cackle that calls itself the left, there is always someone moving further left still. And eventually that further left someone is going to do to you what you used them to do to others: lunge for the throat.
That’s been the case with #MeToo. This being a movement whose vaginal gravity continues to pull former lib golden boys over the event horizon. The latest Champion of Women to be flummoxed by his former floozies is that wizened stud-bull, Bill Clinton. Like most of his accused peers, ole Bill now finds himself on the business end of anathema declarations decades after his deeds.
The most recent fusillade of inward leftist fire resulted from Clinton’s recent response to a question about his old peccadillos in context of MeToo. Of course we could also interrogate King David about the immorality of his multiple wives in context of modern bigamy laws. But fortunately for him he’s too dead to deal with it. In any event, if it’s wrong now it was wrong then. At least that’s the premise until tomorrow.
Regardless, Clinton offered the following remarks:
Clinton’s comments seem to suggest that he believes there was a time in which doing anything against someone’s will was acceptable or normal.
I’m always loath to drag one of their own out of the left’s gullet, but if Clinton is suggesting there was a time in which doing anything against someone’s will was acceptable or normal, he is absolutely correct. That time is always, by the way. People do things against someone else’s will every day in practically every public setting. The only difference is what against-our-will things are in fashion and which are out. A generation ago it was acceptable to smoke tobacco around people who didn’t like it. It was acceptable to proposition women whose receptivity was not assured and to glance at their assets semi-surreptitiously. It was also acceptable to tell jokes about homosexuals and other state-preferred groups who didn’t want to be joked about. All of those things happened against someone else’s will. But since those particular wills now represent society’s moral foundation, that was unacceptable then in hindsight.
But that doesn’t mean we’ve stopped “doing anything against someone’s will.” It is presently acceptable to smoke marijuana around people who don’t like it. It is acceptable to destroy men with evidence-free sexual accusations. It is also acceptable to disparage and demonize whites who don’t want to be disparaged and demonized. All of these things happen against someone else’s will. It’s simply that those aren’t the wills we’re worried about.
Not that an admission of inconsistency will ever taint the outrage. In fact, every comment on the Clinton quote I’ve read (from right and left) has repeated the same insight: You can’t force something against someone’s will. Not now not ever! Ok, well then just go ahead and put “Whites Only” on your house rental ad as long as you’re sure.
The obvious point Clinton was making is that both workplace mores and the contours of who can force what on whom are always changing. But in saying so impotent Bill forgot the two rules of modern social survival: Always know the rules and rulers, and always deny knowing. Thus his implication that holding past behavior to present morality isn’t moral at all is saying a bit much for the twitter swarm.
As a more seasoned speaker than Bill Clinton, I know to say that the workplace has always been a sterile factory of asexual drones, diversity, and BLTs. We have always been at war with white heterosexual Eastasians. Thank you, drive through.