It’s not about the brothers! You can see the spin now. This is Billy Carter Redux. But it has nothing to do with Billy Carter. This is not about some renegade relative out there doing embarrassing things over which the president has no control. It’s about those renegade relatives using their access to the president to undermine a sacred part of our criminal justice system. Without the president’s cooperation, there would be no scandal at all. It’s about Clinton, stupid. In fact, the most poignant part of Roger Clinton’s recent explanations of what he did was the naivete with which he dealt with his elder brother. Leaving an envelope on a table for the president to find is almost touching in its cluelessness. The very gesture suggests Roger knew he was doing something illicit; a more direct request for the president to pardon people simply because they were friends with his brother would have seemed a little crass – even for Bubba Junior. Nevertheless, Roger expected his brother to take the hint. He didn’t realize that what Clinton is about is not helping his trailer-park bro win some friends. It’s about using the pardon power to shake down money, establish new channels for fund-raising, and generally lay the groundwork for a post-presidential money-power tree from which to operate in future. Roger could never have been a part of that. And he never will be.
A NEW NEW PIECE: For the sheer pleasure of it, check out Michael Lewis’s account of the teenage target of the S.E.C.’s wrath in the New York Times Magazine. Michael – an old friend – is simply the most evocative reporter-writer of his – my – generation. But what was so rewarding about this piece is how it captures Michael’s instinctive support for the under-dog, and keen eye for naked emperors. At a time when the conventional wisdom is leaning against the revolutionary aspect of the Internet, he also reminds us how radical the Internet still is – how it can empower a fourteen-year-old boy to the same levels of influence as Wall Street machers. And how the greatest stories are simply there – lying for the picking in the unlikely breakthroughs of ordinary people daring to speak and think for themselves.
THE FULLER MONTY: The official biographer of legendary Field Marshall Montgomery is at work on an update of his three-volume tome written in the 1980s. Nigel Hamilton had unique access to hundreds of letters and materials thanks to close cooperation with Monty’s family and estate. Now that he has been freed from some of those connections and obligations, Hamilton has decided to include in his one-volume summary, “The Full Monty,” the argument that Monty was a repressed pedophile. According to yesterday’s Sunday Times of London, Hamilton “said he had no proof of a physical relationship between Montgomery and the many boys he befriended, though he has no doubt that he was passionately in love with them. One was Lucien Trueb, whom Montgomery met in 1946 when the Swiss boy was just 12, and they corresponded over many years. Hamilton, a visiting professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, says his new book, to be published this summer, has not been written to destroy but to explain the reputation of a man he regards as a “revolutionary” commander. “I’ve been curious to find out why he was such a revolutionary leader. I believe his sexuality is a key. His passion for young men helped him relate to his liaison officers and young staff. He felt a real concern for their welfare,” said Hamilton.” This raises an interesting but unnerving question. To what extent can illicit, even immoral, desires, if repressed, actually do good? Monty appeared to have serial crushes on boys and adolescents, although he probably never acted upon them. Channeling this repressed demon may actually have led to what helped defeat Rommel, Hamilton argues. The same defense has also been made about Lord Baden Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, and almost certainly someone with pedophile inclinations – again probably repressed. I should say here, before Mary Eberstadt sinks her canines into my left ankle, that this is NOT a defense of pedophilia. It is an inquiry into whether the successful repression of it might be linked with worthwhile activities. We’ve all known that selfless, single teacher in high school, who devoted close attention to his young charges – but never went over the line. Is that teacher a molestation waiting to happen or a fine example of self-control and moral conduct? It’s a tough call. Barring such people from any profession which might lead them into temptation would not only rob them of a chance to prove their self-control, but also rob society of their talents. On the other hand, if a single child is hurt because of this, is it worth the risk? I lean toward thinking the latter. But Monty reminds us that even the greatest legends had human failings. And if they turn those failings to good, should we still see fit to condemn them?
DUH: “If this really is marital mutually assured destruction, which half will prevail?” – Maureen Dowd today.
The Dish 