It's Not About Sex: A Teenager's View of the Clinton Legacy

By Jason D. Fodeman

It's all About Sex . . . No! Now we find out that it was even more than malfeasance, perjury, hush money, renting the Lincoln bedroom, FBI files, disappearing emails, and White House campaign calls. Now, it's also about neglect, nonfeasance, terrorism, thousands of American civilians dead.

But . . . They still love him, He's Clinton the Teflon President.

Hi, as Mr. Irvine said, my name is Jason Fodeman. I am an eighteen year old freshman at Johns Hopkins University.

As Mr. Irvine also told you, I am here because I have written a 219 page manuscript entitled "How to Destroy a Village: What the Clintons Taught a Seventeen Year Old."

It is truly an honor to be here today to discuss my manuscript and I would like to thank Accuracy in Media for giving me this generous opportunity to speak.

I have worked on my manuscript for more than a year, relating the dichotomy between the Clinton legacy and the mainstream teaching of parental values. The book chronicles the Clintons' misdeeds, the complicity of the Justice Department, and the free pass by a largely adoring media. It leads to a conclusion that all too often parents prostituted those values, turning a blind eye to the scandals while sending a confusing mixed message to their progeny.

The book contains a timely and important message. The target audience is all parents and all those in loco parentis who expect children to live up to the lofty goals they espouse but often fail to achieve themselves.

I am sure that some of you must be wondering what got me so interested in politics and what motivated me to write a book. After all, its rather an arduous task to get some of today's youth just to read a book!

In all honesty, politics is a rather new interest of mine. As I say in my manuscript, obviously, at age nine when Bill Clinton became President, I had no political beliefs. I didn't start seriously getting interested in government and politics until the summer before my high school senior year.

At the time and currently my main career interest is medicine. I love kids and want to be a pediatrician. However, in today's society it is important that doctor's have some business sense too and also it is important for all people to learn how to invest for future needs. Knowing this, I thought that it would be a good experience for me to do a summer internship at an investment firm. I eventually wound up at Salomon Smith Barney.

The work I performed that summer was certainly not the most exciting I have ever done. I mostly did tedious scut work. However, the experience did have two profound, lasting effects. As expected, the internship kindled my interest in the stock market, but also got me interested in something else, something called politics.

Up until that time, I had only heard the word "politics" once before. It was during my days as a pre Babe Ruth baseball player. I was fortunate enough to play on an after season All Star team (it was either a summer or fall team, I forget which). Anyway my playing time left me confused. For some reason, some of the other kids, whom I didn't think were as good players as I was, got significantly more playing time than I did. And when I did play, I always batted near last, if not last, which was a spot, I felt, did not parallel my batting skills. It was frustrating, so I asked my dad.

He explained the situation. According to him, it was no coincidence that the coaches' sons got to start and bat high up in the lineup. It was also no coincidence that the sons of the father's who were willing to lavishly schmooze with the coach at practice and games were also given priority. It was no accident, it was something called politics, he said.

The word left me indignant. It made me sit on the bench and watch when I really wanted to get my opportunity, any opportunity, to do what I love, which is play baseball.

At the time I was clueless as to the breadth of the word's meaning. Was politics only a baseball word such as line-drive, double play, and South Paw? Did other sports have politics too? Was there such thing as politics outside of sports? It was all Greek to me.

The years flew by and I completely forgot about that evil word. However, at Salomon Smith Barney I was reunited with my arch nemesis.

The financial consultant whom I reported to each day, suggested that I couple my work experience with outside reading, so I could maximize my experience and learn the most.

I wanted to take in as much as possible. That is why I was there in the first place, so I concurred. It's funny how little occurrences, events that at the time mean nothing, can sometimes have major effects on one's life. This suggestion had those mammoth effects.

I read Warren Buffet's book, "The Warren Buffet Way." The book was interesting, but also depressing for me because it was the book my close uncle, Robert Fodeman was reading when he died.

After this read, my dad recommended that I start to read The Wall Street Journal. I skimmed through the paper and then I got to the editorial page. I read one, found it interesting, and then read another, and another, and another until I had read every article on the page. I was fascinated and I was hooked.

Every day after work and then after school, I would rush home to read the daily insight from The Wall Street Journal editorial page. I soon found the cable news channels: Fox, CNN, and MSNBC and I then found their political shows such as "The O'Reilly Factor", "Equal Time", "Hardball", "Crossfire", and my personal favorite "Hannity & Colmes." I was intrigued by the sophisticated issues these shows discussed and their relevance to my life.

I made amends with politics and became an aficionado of it as I am with specific professional and college sports. Devoting as much time to learn about political issues, arguments, and events as possible.

The above explains my trip from a political know nothing to a political fan. However, I am sure you are also curious what motivated me to write a 219 page manuscript.

Surely, there are many teenagers who are interested in politics, but I can confidently say that few have also written political manuscripts.

I have a wide array of interests what made me write about politics. Why didn't I pick baseball? Music? Movies? The Simpsons? There are many interests I could have written a book about, if I was inclined to do so, so what made me chose to write about politics?

I was brought up to always give back to the community and have always endeavored to do this. During my four years of high school I was a volunteer at different departments in the local hospital.

When I went job hunting for the first time, I found the experience difficult because there were certain things I did not know due to my age. Since I consider myself the average teen, I figured if I didn't know something, then odds are the person sitting next to me didn't know it either. Thus I wrote my experiences and the lessons I learned in a pamphlet, in the hope that I could make the experience easier for my peers and those younger. I applied for and was rewarded a United Way grant to publish this work.

My manuscript, "How to Destroy a Village: What the Clintons Taught a Seventeen Year Old," was my way of giving back. Much has been said about the Clinton scandals over the years, but I believe there was one perspective that was missing and that perspective is the effect that the never ending scandals had on our impressionable youth.

The experts have spent significant time trying to delve into what is wrong with today's youth. These pundits have done a good job looking into the negative effects that violent movies, violent video games, and violent music have had on our children.

These forms of entertainment may have contributed to such tragic events as school shootings such as the Columbine massacre. However, although these school shootings receive enormous press, they are few and far between.

What has caused the more frequent everyday wrongdoing of young adults such as lying, not taking responsibility, and insulting others? I believe that part of the problem is the Clinton legacy. It is my contention that the Clintons' eight years of sleaze has had negative ramifications for our youth.

I found two studies that validate my conclusion. One study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows an increase in oral sex amongst kids as young as twelve years old. Another study shows increased cheating by both high school and college students.

These two studies do not directly connect the dots between their findings and the Clinton Presidency. Yet, in a US News & World Report article, one student attempts to sum up the cheating problem by saying, quote: " If Clinton can do it and get away with it, why can't we?'

However, I am not going to pretend that this manuscript is a scholarly treatise. It is not a compilation of great scientific research with complicated statistics and technical mumbo jumbo. What it is, is a common sense analysis of facts and observations.

The point is simple. The conclusion almost obvious. One does not have to Ph.D. or even a college degree.

I realize that some people do not want to make the determination contained in this manuscript because of their own agenda. I highly doubt Dan Rather or Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw will ever make it. However, I believe it to be true.

My parents taught me one thing. The Clintons' by their actions taught the exact opposite.

My parents and other good parents teach their kids to do the right thing, to be honest, to have integrity, and to take responsibility because being a good person is most important.

The Clintons by their actions teach something different. They teach us kids: do whatever you want and then do whatever you can to avoid responsibility. As long as you get to where you want to go, that is all that matters, not what you do along the way.

Now obviously there is a clear difference between parental values and the Clintons' behavior. To me as a typical teenager, this raises a dilemma. Who was right? Were my parents overzealous, overprotective parents who were out of touch with the world? Does the ends simply justify the means?

Here is a man with the two things young adults dream about: money and power. After the Presidency, Clinton has unlimited earning power. During the Presidency he is the most powerful man in the world. The perks he has no amount of money can buy. No one can close down an airport, so they can get a 400 dollar haircut.

This man has all this money and all this power, but no morals. This left me thinking, does that mean it is ok if you don't have morals? Is a lack of ethics what is necessary to achieve success in today's competitive society.

After sorting it all out, I believe my parents' lessons. Although the Clintons were able to evade accountability despite numerous accusations, the average citizen can not. One can not count on the media and the Justice Department to constantly bail him or her out, so that person will get in trouble by following in the President's footsteps.

Some people may dismiss this as just another Clinton bashing, but I see it differently.

Just as with violent video games, violent movies, and violent music, children may become desensitized to the everyday wrongdoing of the Clintons'.

At best these children may see nothing wrong when they witness similar behavior and at worst may adopt the Clintons' sleazy modus operandi as their own.

Unfortunately, psychologists and sociologists have not looked into this issue, so there are no corroborating studies. Regardless, the startlingly similar events of this summer show that the Clintons have affected real people. Congressman Condit seemed to follow the Clinton play book step for step. He first wronged. Then he did everything in his power to avoid responsibility. He stalled, denied, covered up, and attacked. Sounds quite familiar. The Clintons surely emphasized these tactics and made them acceptable.

One has the right to expect his or her Congressmen to be good, honest people with moral restraint. If we can't get that from our leaders, then what can we expect from our children?

Concerned parents, in between working forty hours a week, paying credit card bills, and filing taxes, try to instill values in their children, such as taking responsibility, not lying, and not resorting to "personal destruction." The child hears these lessons, but sees the Clintons who are living the good life though immersed in scandalsÉ while his parents are struggling just to pay off the mortgage.

The child begins to think that those tactics are acceptable and necessary to achieve success like the Clintons. When in a bad situation, he does not do what he has heard, but what he has seen work: the Clintons' methods. That is where the child's aspirations end and reality begins.

Children learn by actions, not by talk. The Clinton years marked the height of parental hypocrisy. Parents may have preached values to their children. However, these parents were not willing to support their values with actions.

Some of these parents rationalized that the economy was good, so they let Clinton keep his job by their continued support. Parents told their kids that values were important, but when push came to shove these parents put money over values. Thus telling their kids that success is more important than doing the right thing.

A concern of mine is that due to my age people will think I am na•ve. For the record, I am cognizant that Clinton is not the first corrupt politician.

The difference is that in the past, wrongdoing became, known there was a real effort for accountability. Previously, politicians who wronged were either kicked out of office, forced to resign, or disgracefully finished their term and disappeared. But with Clinton it was different. Regardless of reason, whether it was his charm, his intelligence, the economy, Janet Reno, Mary Jo White, or the liberal media, he was able to finish his two terms as a popular President and made wrongdoing acceptable in politics.

The Clintons actions were wrong, but a worse lesson for young people is that their actions worked. If the Clintons were properly punished and held accountable, parents could have said to their children that is what happens when people do bad or that everyone's actions catch up with them, even the President's. Parents could have used Clinton as an example to show children to do right and obey the laws, but that did not happen.

This past summer I was in Las Vegas with my family. We stayed at Mandalay Bay hotel. At the time Bill Clinton was also in town. He was staying at the Four Seasons, which is attached to Mandalay Bay.

Anyway, late one night my parents and I were going back to our room when we noticed a huge crowd of people around a group of gambling tables. We went over to see what the commotion was about and sure enough, it was Bill Clinton.

I just didn't get it. The people fawning over him were not the billionaire lawyers, the hotshot liberal businessmen, or celebrities that Clinton most likely entertained earlier in the evening when he gave one of his six-figure speeches. No, these were everyday, hard-working middle or upper-middle class family people on vacation. People whose job of raising children was made infinitely more difficult by the Clinton Presidency. It made me sick!

What message does this teach our children? One would think parents would not want to schmooze with an alleged rapist, someone who lied under oath, someone who had to cop a plea on the last day of office to avoid indictment, and someone who even today is still under Federal investigation. It certainly doesn't teach the importance of values and honesty.

It's really hard to figure. Here is a man who, because of his philandering ways, most women would not want for a spouse, you wouldn't trust him five minutes with your daughter, and you certainly would not buy a used car from him, but people seem to say that for President he was OK.

As the Las Vegas anecdote shows, this has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a "do what I say, not what I do" mentality. Parents "who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk" in today's vernacular.

Not everyone who listens to Marilyn Manson or plays Quake or watches Licensed to Kill, is desensitized to violence. The same is also obviously true with the Clintons. However, it is much easier to dismiss a gun in a video game as entertainment than it is to dismiss the Clintons' machiavellian actions as just a game.

While violent forms of entertainment will only effect specific people, I believe that the Clintons may have a negative effect on all posterity. The Clintons made wrongdoing in politics acceptable and have thus dramatically opened the door for more corrupt politicians. Even the powerful mob can not indefinitely get away with law breaking, perjury, defamation, and intimidation. These tactics should trigger thoughts of the Gambino family, not the First Family.

I believe parents have to understand that children see the President as a role model. Parents must understand that if they do not want their kids to behave irresponsibly, to lie, and to deceive, then they must not rationalize that a President's disgraceful actions are somehow acceptable. There is right and wrong and what is wrong must be judged so.

That is the message I hoped to spread with my manuscript. It is an important message that I believe parents must understand, which is why I wrote this work.

In case you are wondering about the publication process, I have found out that it is much easier to publish a pamphlet than a book. I am still seeking a publisher.

Again, it was truly an honor to speak to you today and I am very grateful that Accuracy in Media gave me this opportunity. I'd be happy to take some questions or comments if there are any.

Article reprinted with permission of the author. Originally appeared on Accuracy In Media.
(aim.org)

Reply to this article in the Rant Forum!