That Was Then, This Is NOW

We've all learned lately that principle in politics often has to yield to pragmatic compromise. That's life. But there are still some times when compromise is too costly. Consider the events of the past week.

Our yearlong national bad dream seems to be over. The impeachment trial has ended; the president, acquitted and wisely suppressing any celebration of victory, is still in office. House Republicans are trying to restore their tarnished image. Independent counsels everywhere are hoping Kenneth W. Starr hasn't put them out of work because of the way he handled his job. The cap to these past few weeks of closure was last night's 20/20 interview with Monica S. Lewinsky.

Carefully coifed and made-up, seeming quite at ease sitting on the couch opposite Barbara Walters, Lewinsky held her won for the extent of the two-hour discussion. She probably came off a little smarter than most of us expected her to be, but it was still a little eerie to see the intern, object of our president's affections and of the nation's disgust and ridicule for the last several months, giggling and chatting on national television. That's they way we handle things these days, though--nothing's really over until you see it deconstructed by the major players on ABC.

But even as ABC hyped the interview of the year on one frequency, NBC quietly trumped its rival last week by broadcasting Lisa Myers' long delayed interview with Juanita Broadderick, the woman who says Bill Clinton raped her 21 years ago. Many felt that her story had been plausible, including apparently David Gergen, a former Clinton advisor. He said on "Larry King Live" the day after the interview, "It's not just this woman. It's a pattern...the nausea level on this is such that you really begin to feel...It's one thing if it were consensual. But this question of being predatory is...something we have to think about...it's a question about one's...psychological makeup and your spirituality."

Despite these strong words, I was still stunned to see on that same episode of "Larry King" the real story of this past week: Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), sympathizing with Broadderick. After all, hadn't she and NOW been largely silent when analogous (though not quite as serious) charges had been made by Paula Jones? Hadn't NOW been conspicuously reticent on the issue of whether Lewinsky's relationship with the president, conducted between consenting adults, nevertheless had had some hint of sexual harassment because of the workplace imbalance of power?

"Part of the reason her television appearance was so compelling was it seems as if she pushed this all down, papered it over," Ireland said. "We have a got a president who, if he looked right in our eyes or in a camera and said, `I did not have sex with this woman and didn't rape her either,' there's certain credibility gap."

I was pleased to hear that Ireland was defending the story of a possible rape victim but surprised that she was so stinging in her comments about the president. Feminists' hesitancy to condemn Bill Clinton for actions similar to those for which they had rightly vilified Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood has been extremely troublesome to me. I understand the reason for the double standard, though: Packwood and Thomas were conservatives unlikely to help women's causes in any real way--in that sense, they were fair game for attack. Clinton, on the other hand, is ostensibly "on our side" as a proponent of abortion rights, child care and equal pay. To attack him would be to weaken the standing of an "advocate" in the fight for woman's rights. I understand the argument.

But I don't buy it anymore. By essentially looking the other way when it came to Bill Clinton, NOW has weakened its larger mission to be an advocacy group for women. Even Ireland's passionate defense of Broadderick's right not to be slandered by Clinton backers had a curious element of political timing. Due to NBC's delaying the story until after the impeachment trial had ended, Ireland was able to make a bold rebuke to Clinton without fear that her comments would influence the outcome of the trial. Alas, there's no way to know if she would have responded the same way had the piece aired a few weeks earlier.

NOW's national profile is inherently political. As a lobbying organization, it has fought successfully for improved sexual harassment laws and stronger rape prosecution, among other noble accomplishments. Necessarily, this lobbying effort has relied on Democratic support. At some point, though, its obligation to principal needs to outweigh its political dependence.

A more consistent response--measured, open-minded and supportive--to allegations of sexual harassment and rape, whether against the president or any other prominent political figure, would benefit NOW and the population of women in this country that it wants to protect. The initial political expediency of supporting the president over these last months has translated into a weakened credibility for the organization. I agreed with the force of Ireland's comments on "Larry King" but couldn't help thinking that their effect was blunted by the awkward timing. The juxtaposition of Ireland's comments and the president's acquittal by the Senate was just too close. I wish she and her organization had been there then as well as now. Susannah B. Tobin '00 is a classics concentrator in Lowell House . Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.