A.M. Siriano
November 21, 2005
How liberalism abetted the crimes of Bill Clinton
An interview with Candice E. Jackson, author of Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine
By A.M. Siriano

Her motives are clear: to get the truth out, to make sure people never forget, to hold a sexual predator and his accomplices accountable for their crimes, to make a stand for the women directly affected, to send a message to people everywhere that the supposed "good of the many" does not justify the victimization of the few.

Her name is Candice E. Jackson, a "libertarian feminist" who works as an attorney in Los Angeles. Her new book is called Their Lives, the title being a reproach for the considerable lapse in memory that is the most distinguishing feature of Clinton's own biography entitled My Life. In his book you won't find the stories of the women who were "targeted by the Clinton machine," but in Their Lives, Jackson not only tells their stories, but explains how Bill Clinton was able to prey upon them with impunity, how, in fact, he is to this day considered a champion of women's rights, even though his behavior belied that role.

Is this just another recounting of Clinton's alleged infidelities, another hate-fest designed to tear down the former President's reputation? Far from it. The author combines both reason and empathy to deliver a fresh perspective on a familiar story, involving the nature of misogyny in today's society and how liberalism did its part to enable Bill Clinton to abuse women. "Liberal misogny" — the term that represents the thesis of Their Lives — "deserves closer inspection," and the author does exactly that.

Question: You define the term "liberal misogynist" as "someone who can use and abuse women in his personal life while claiming his behavior doesn't detract from his political merit because the policies he advocates serve a greater good." Liberalism, you explain, "dovetails with misogyny" by providing a moral high ground that can be used to rationalize personal mistreatment of women (pgs. 23-25). Do you believe that liberalism predisposes males in a society to misogynistic behavior?

Answer: For a person already predisposed to undervaluing or mistreating women (perhaps for emotional or psychological reasons), adherence to liberal political principles can actually help foster that person's misogynistic tendencies. This is because some principles of liberalism, like valuing group rights over individual rights, and using political force to achieve personal goals, enable a liberal misogynist to rationalize his or her negative behavior toward individual women. Not every liberal is a misogynist, or vice versa, but liberal misogyny is a specific type of mistreatment against women that deserves scrutiny.

Q: Suzi Parker was targeted for intimidation when she investigated Clinton's culpability in the Arkansas "prison plasma program," which helped to spread the instances of Hepatitis C and HIV in Canada by the thousands. Do you believe that Clinton and his cronies would have ignored her work had she been male?

A: Good question. No, the Clintons have demonstrated a willingness to use intimidation and smear tactics against both men and women who threaten their political positions. However, the intentional harm caused to women like Suzi Parker and the others I recount in Their Lives certainly exposes one aspect of the Clintons' abuse of power — their abuse of power directed toward women.

Q: Most womanizers are secretly (sometimes openly) proud of their sexual conquests. Despite the damage that this book and others do to Clinton's reputation, do you suspect that history will be kind to him, even romanticizing his "sexual prowess"? Given his renowned love of "the chase," and his penchant for self-aggrandizement, isn't this really what a person like Bill Clinton wants?

A: "History" will only be kind to Bill Clinton until those of us who intend to define what "history" thinks of Bill understand that Bill Clinton's type of "sexual prowess" is not about love or romance — it's about power, control, and disrespect for women. In Chapter 7 of Their Lives I address the question of whether Bill Clinton is just a smooth "Don Juan" or whether he is actually a predator, and I hope that encourages a vigorous debate on the question.

Q: By all accounts Clinton treated Gennifer Flowers with kindness and respect (if we disregard the moral implications, of course) until the revelation of the affair threatened his career. Is it fair to treat his subsequent denial of his past as misogynistic? Might we not see it simply as self-preservation?

A: Self-preservation is one aspect of the way Flowers was treated by the Clinton team. However, as I surmise in Their Lives, Clinton's attack against Flowers seems motivated not only by political survival instinct, but also by characteristic attitudes common to misogynists.

Q: Some of the women involved with Clinton used their notoriety to boost their own careers, including the use of their newly inflated sexual personae to secure nude photo spreads in high-profile girlie magazines. Do you applaud these women for making the most of their circumstances in this manner?

A: I can't say that I "applaud" them, but I do understand the impulse of the women who chose such a path. Some, like Gennifer Flowers, longed for fame and fortune long before becoming involved with Bill Clinton, and she used the affair to her advantage. Others, like Paula Jones, found her life so destroyed by her battle with the Clintons that she felt she had no choice but to do whatever she could to help herself and her children financially. I challenge anyone reading Their Lives to put herself or himself in the shoes of these women before judging any of them too harshly for their choices. The fact remains that their experiences crossing paths with Bill Clinton severely damaged their lives. That some women tried to get something back isn't surprising, nor does it detract from the abhorrent behavior of the Clinton team.

Q: During the 1990's, it was not uncommon to hear both men and women express admiration for Clinton's "animal magnetism." Women were especially prone to fawning over this modern Don Juan, and it seemed the age-old fascination with "the bad boy" image had reached a new high, especially among liberals. Do you see America's love affair with this man as a blow to women's issues, or has it served to focus them?

A: Overall, the prevalent view of Bill Clinton as some relatively harmless Don Juan character is damaging to women's issues, because it masks the true damage that men like Bill Clinton inflict on the women they ensnare.

Q: In a fascinating section in Chapter Three, you provide a lucid indictment of liberalism, comparing and contrasting it to communism. Of these two ideological manifestations, which is more dangerous threat to the advance of liberty?

A: In the short run, communism inflicts much more egregious and concrete harm to liberty and property interests. However, in the long-run, liberalism is just as dangerous because it advances many of the same goals as communism, but through a democratic system. This is especially dangerous because liberalism, unlike communism, reduces individual liberty by consent of the majority, so liberalism erodes freedom slowly and steadily. It can take decades under liberalism to realize just how much freedom has been given away to government control.

Q: Despite the liberals' best efforts to discredit Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and others, to quash the truth, I recall that many liberals partly believed the women's stories and not Bill Clinton. I also remember that they didn't seem to care. Is it possible that "liberal misogyny" created a national mood of apathy during those times?

A: One of the reasons for the apathy among Clinton supporters, feminist groups, and liberals in general, was a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to support women's rights. One of the common excuses for Clinton was "He's really good on women's issues when it comes to policies, so we have to let his personal misbehavior slide." The concept of liberal misogyny solves the apparent contradiction that there is actually a connection between Bill Clinton's liberal politics and his misogyny. You can't just separate the two. Liberalism's version of "women's rights" consists of things like being pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, pro-welfare state. I hope that Their Lives will encourage people to think about a different way of defining "women's issues." You can be pro-life and in favor of smaller government and still be a strong supporter of women's rights — if you advocate treating women with dignity and respect.

Q: You note that Paula Jones, without getting her apology from Bill Clinton, "had accomplished her goal: believability" (pg. 122). What made her testimony more believable than his?

A: The fact that Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones for a large sum of money even after her lawsuit had been dismissed tended to vindicate Paula Jones. Also, Bill Clinton was fined by the federal judge and had his law license suspended in Arkansas for lying and misleading the court in his testimony. Even though Bill Clinton never apologized, Paula Jones walked away from the legal battle with good reason for people to believe she had been telling the truth and Bill Clinton was lying.

Q: I hold the view that a "woman's right to choose" to abort a child is ultimately detrimental to women's struggle to be treated as something other than sexual playthings, because it has effectively reduced the one last hurdle toward sexual conquest: personal responsibility. What is your take on this issue?

A: When it comes to "women's rights" in this country, one of the biggest myths is that you have to be pro-abortion in order to truly be a supporter of women's rights. Abortion isn't a "woman's issue" at all. It's an issue of human rights, individual liberty, and our social interest in protecting each person's right to live and breathe. Our positions on abortion are very much influenced by our personal moral and religious beliefs. A person can be anti-abortion or pro-abortion and still be a true supporter of "women's rights."

Q: The evidence for an actual "Clinton machine" that used various forms of harassment to frighten women is overwhelming (Kathleen Willey's experiences are particularly chilling). Do you believe Bill Clinton personally ordered, or even orchestrated, such activities?

A: I was not able to document how much harassment and intimidation was personally ordered by Bill or Hillary Clinton. However, the threats against these women were certainly to the benefit of the Clintons, and were certainly approved of by them. It could be that the Clintons' cronies just knew what needed to be done to shut these women up and did the dirty work without waiting for orders. Either way, the Clintons bear the blame. The Clintons did their fair share of personally attacking these women in the press as well, from calling Gennifer Flowers a liar to implying that Kathleen Willey was a lunatic.

Q: Your conclusion is almost a postscript, in which you consider the all-too-real possibility of Hillary Clinton as the next President. Feminists everywhere regard this prospect as a symbolic win for woman; you warn that it could be a setback. Is it possible that Hillary is just another victim of liberal misogyny, or does the evidence suggest she is a willing participant?

A: The evidence put forth by Hillary Clinton's words and actions over the course of her lifetime with Bill leave me with no choice but to conclude that she is either as misogynistic as Bill is, or she is willing to endorse his mistreatment of women if that's what it takes for her to preserve her own career. Either way, Hillary Clinton is not a woman whose election to the presidency would spell a victory for women's rights. That particular glass ceiling should be shattered by a woman who, no matter what her political beliefs, has demonstrated true respect for women. Hillary Clinton was elected to the National Women's Hall of Fame in October, an honor that should never have been granted to a women like Hillary who has betrayed so many women by supporting Bill Clinton's sexual assaults and participating in smearing women who have come forward against Bill.

Candice E. Jackson has appeared on Fox News, CNBC, and C-SPAN, and her book, Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, has been featured on The Drudge Report, WorldNetDaily, FrontPage Magazine, and other websites. Her articles have appeared in The Independent Review, Reason Magazine, The Freeman, and other publications advocating free markets and individual liberty. Their Lives is a published by World Ahead Publishing and is now available on-line at Amazon.com and in all major bookstores. Part of all proceeds go to Survivors and Victims Empowered.

© A.M. Siriano

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

 

Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Selwyn Duke
Death of America: Why this presidential election isn't as important as people think

Bryan Fischer
The Founders v. Trump: A republic or a democracy?

Dennis M. Howard
Can America survive the coming population death spiral?

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Leadership with the heart of a mouse

Michael Bresciani
Twenty percent of Trump followers OK with slavery -- A return to darkness?

Chuck Baldwin
My belated tribute to the defenders of the Alamo

Rev. Austin Miles
Frank Sinatra Jr. dies during tour

A.J. Castellitto
The cringe-worthy candidate

Laurie Roth
GOP may just need a padded cell

Cliff Kincaid
Trump's pro-Russian policy threatens Israel

Jerry Newcombe
Liberals are the true censors

Curtis Dahlgren
If you miss this column, you'll have to mess up on your own!
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites