tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/monica-lewinsky-10326/articlesMonica Lewinsky – The Conversation2023-04-04T12:19:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2031002023-04-04T12:19:38Z2023-04-04T12:19:38ZHow the indictment of Donald Trump is a ‘strange and different’ event for America, according to political scientists<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518856/original/file-20230401-26-vgxsr6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C6002%2C4001&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It was big news when a grand jury voted to indict former President Donald Trump.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/newspaper-front-pages-with-former-us-president-donald-trump-news-photo/1250118227?adppopup=true">Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-indictment-wont-keep-him-from-presidential-race-but-will-make-his-reelection-bid-much-harder-197677">indictment of a former president</a> of the United States, Donald Trump, is history happening in real time. The Conversation asked political scientists <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FlYT3TEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">James D. Long</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=W54pBFgAAAAJ">Victor Menaldo</a>, both at the University of Washington, to help readers understand the meaning of this moment in the U.S. The two scholars have written about the lessons other democracies can teach the U.S. about <a href="https://theconversation.com/prosecuting-a-president-is-divisive-and-sometimes-destabilizing-heres-why-many-countries-do-it-anyway-188565">prosecuting a president</a> and provide the context for Trump’s arraignment in a Manhattan courthouse.</em> </p>
<h2>What was the first thing you thought when you heard that the grand jury voted to indict Trump?</h2>
<p><strong>James Long</strong>: The first thought I had was about the grand jury, and how much work it is to be on a grand jury. It becomes a part-time job. And how wonderful that we live in a country where that’s how these things are decided. Twenty-three people performed this service that is so critical to the functioning of our country and our democracy. They do it not just for Donald Trump’s case, but for many types of cases. There was something very touching about it.</p>
<p>The strength of our legal system is the thing that makes me proud. What makes me sad is that we’re in this situation. If you think about all the battles that have been fought to make our democracy better, stronger and more inclusive over more than 200 years – we’re now at a place where someone has threatened that to pursue their own interests. That’s just a sad thing to have to experience as a country. I’m glad that we’re going through it following the rule of law, as opposed to fighting it out as a political matter in the streets or fighting a war or something else disastrous, as other countries have done.</p>
<p><strong>Victor Menaldo</strong>: I thought of cases that are similar, analogs in other parts of the world. Prime Minister <a href="https://theconversation.com/prosecuting-ex-presidents-for-corruption-is-trending-worldwide-but-its-not-always-great-for-democracy-156931">Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel</a> came to mind. <a href="https://apnews.com/article/caribbean-evo-morales-bolivia-50747531a0c6a757cd5f423ccf8e84d5">Evo Morales in Bolivia</a> came to mind. A <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/20190321-brazil-fall-three-former-presidents">bunch of Brazilian former presidents</a> <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/10/31/lula-looks-to-restore-brazils-tarnished-global-stature">came to mind</a> – the past four, in fact – who went through different stages of prosecution or impeachment, or some were arrested, some spent time in jail.</p>
<p>I also thought about the politics and how Trump might continue down the path he’s been on – getting folks inflamed and throwing fireballs and muddying the waters. How far will he go, and what purposes will that serve – maybe intimidating judges, witnesses and juries and the like – in terms of bolstering his campaign?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a dark suit and white shirt holds an upturned fist." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518862/original/file-20230401-28-kvtf32.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump after speaking during a rally at the Waco Regional Airport on March 25, 2023, in Waco, Texas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-prepares-to-depart-after-news-photo/1476375191?adppopup=true">Brandon Bell/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can this indictment do to America?</h2>
<p><strong>James Long</strong>: My generation lived through <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/legacy/Clinton-Lewinsky-story.pdf">President Bill Clinton’s impeachment</a>. As I’ve grown older, I’ve seen other things that other presidents have gotten away with. So I probably thought the indictment would not have been that surprising. </p>
<p>Yet the indictment is shocking to me now. It’s also just shocking in the sense that Trump has spent his entire life in litigation and either getting away with stuff or not, but never being potentially held at a personal level legally liable in a criminal matter – although he does still have the presumption of innocence. It was very shocking to me to think that this has finally happened – like, this really is strange and different.</p>
<p><strong>Victor Menaldo</strong>: I tend to see the U.S. as less exceptional these days, at least politically, because of Trump. The various <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigations-civil-criminal.html">investigations of Trump</a>, and now the indictment, are less surprising than they might have been at one time. Americans had anticipated that a shoe would drop eventually, and this indictment was the shoe, or one of the first shoes. It was bound to happen, because Trump has been pushing the envelope for so long.</p>
<p>I <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/authoritarianism-and-the-elite-origins-of-democracy/29C0246C5474CBC5184B2967AD4206ED">co-authored a book in 2018</a> with <a href="https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/michael-albertus">Michael Albertus</a>. Our fundamental premise was that the fear of prosecution drives a lot of politics, across countries and across time. It’s basic to whether you’ll have a democracy or whether the democracy will weaken. </p>
<p>So if you’re afraid of prosecution, you might, if you’re a dictator, prevent democracy at all costs. If you were very nasty, you’d make sure that democracy doesn’t happen or that it happens on your terms, because if it happens on someone else’s terms, you’re going to end up in a prison. You’re going to try to craft a system where the judiciary is beholden to you so you don’t get in any trouble.</p>
<p>My other thought is, thank goodness that this happened once Trump was out of power. You don’t control the machinery of government when you’re out of power. You don’t control the Justice Department. Your power is weak politically, even though Trump is the putative <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-republicans-rally/">leader of the Republican Party</a> and <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker/">front-runner in the GOP</a> for the 2024 nomination. But he lacks the cachet he once had and he lacks the powers he would otherwise use to cause much damage. That gives me optimism that this prosecution might not be as existential to our system as it would have been, let’s say, when he was still in power.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a a white T-shirt setting up a metal barricade in front of a building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/518861/original/file-20230401-28-bpbu79.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New York Police Department workers set up barricades outside the offices of the Manhattan district attorney on April 1, 2023, in New York City.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/workers-with-the-nypd-set-up-barricades-outside-the-offices-news-photo/1250351591?adppopup=true">Kena Betancur/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Are the arrest and booking symbolically important in the grand story of Trump and America?</h2>
<p><strong>James Long</strong>: Certainly. I think that is going to be the image that is next to his obituary – a former president’s mug shot.</p>
<p>I believe that Trump’s political stock has declined every day since he’s left office. I think he thinks this prosecution will help him, and it might short term. I think he’s going to try to use that image, much like Jesus on the cross, to say, essentially, “Here I am being martyred at the hands of a Democratic DA in a Democratic state among a grand jury probably made up of citizens who are all Democrats out to get me, and a judge out to get me!”</p>
<p>That mug shot might be an image he’s going to exploit, but ultimately, I believe it’s going to be embarrassing to him. I don’t think moderate Republicans will vote for somebody who is being prosecuted. I think they’re going to shop around. The <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/2024-state-primary-election-dates">first primary is a little less than a year</a> away. There’s a long time for the Republicans to politically realign themselves behind another candidate.</p>
<p><strong>Victor Menaldo</strong>: Trump’s best move, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/">according to his theory of the world</a>, is to be a martyr and to weaponize the symbolism of a former president being indicted and claim it’s totally politicized.</p>
<p>I would say that anyone who cares about the rule of law in general, Democrats and the folks in these judicial proceedings, in particular, they have to be very careful not to reinforce that weaponization narrative there. I believe the prosecutors will probably do unconventional things and treat Trump differently from your typical defendant. They’ll reduce the odds that there is going to be some mug shot that goes viral, they won’t cuff him, won’t do the perp walk. They’ll treat him with respect and dignity. </p>
<p>How they handle his arraignment is going to be a fascinating game to observe – how to lower the profile of that moment. Their best strategy would be to play it down and try to uphold the dignity of the office or former office. Trump’s best move is to say this prosecution is weaponization of the legal system, milk the idea he’s being persecuted for all it’s worth and some of that will probably stick with his core supporters.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203100/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the first time, a former US president has been indicted, and two scholars describe what it means for democracy – and for them.James D. Long, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of WashingtonVictor Menaldo, Professor of Political Science, Co-founder of the Political Economy Forum, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1078882018-12-05T18:55:39Z2018-12-05T18:55:39ZExplainer: what does ‘gaslighting’ mean?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248898/original/file-20181204-133106-1jj9zm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer in Gaslight (1944), the film that inspired the now widely used term. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Metro Goldwyn-Mayer</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Shortlisted for the Oxford English Dictionary’s 2018 <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/shortlist-2018">word of the year</a>, “gaslighting” has well and truly found its way into contemporary thought and vernacular. </p>
<p>The term has recently been employed to explain the behaviour of contestants on <a href="https://www.mamamia.com.au/cat-bachelor-2018/">The Bachelor Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo">Monica Lewinksy’s experiences with the media</a> post-Bill Clinton, and the words of US President Donald Trump.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248896/original/file-20181204-133106-1xbxve8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Monica Lewinsky: in a recent essay she wrote of emerging from ‘the House of Gaslight’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sheri Determan/WENN.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what, exactly, does it mean? Where did it come from? And why is it experiencing a resurgence today?</p>
<p>Gaslighting takes its name from the 1944 film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/">Gaslight</a>, starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer (itself based on the 1938 play Gas Light). In the film, Paula (Bergman) is deliberately and gradually manipulated by her husband, Gregory (Boyer), into believing she is insane. Paula’s late aunt’s priceless jewels are hidden in their house: if Paula is declared insane and committed to an asylum, Gregory can search for the jewels in peace.</p>
<p>One of his main tactics in convincing Paula she is losing her mind is his manipulation of the gaslights in their home. Whenever he sneaks off to the attic to search for the jewels, he switches on the lights in that part of the house: this leads all other lights to flicker and dim. Upon returning to Paula, he denies all knowledge of this, leading her to question her sanity. </p>
<p>In the film’s final scenes, Paula allows a policeman to enter the house while Gregory is preoccupied with his search. The policeman confirms that the lights are flickering, demonstrating that Paula is not insane. </p>
<h2>What does gaslighting look like?</h2>
<p>Gaslighting is a new term for a relatively old set of behaviours. If you’ve read the ancient Greek myth of <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(metaphor)">Cassandra</a> (about a woman cursed to foresee true prophecies that others disbelieve due to her perceived mental instability), watched <a href="https://filmschoolrejects.com/westworld-the-truman-show-and-gaslighting-5b11b5d4816/">The Truman Show</a>, or listened to Shaggy’s hit song, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv5fqunQ_4I">It Wasn’t Me</a> (in which a man tells his girlfriend it wasn’t him she saw having sex with another woman), you’ve seen gaslighting in action. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qv5fqunQ_4I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Although it can cover various behaviours, the central tenet of gaslighting is the psychological manipulation of a person in order to erode their sense of self and sanity. </p>
<p>The behaviour itself is not always deliberate, in that the perpetrator may not have consciously set out to distort another person’s experience of reality. But gaslighting is often used as a method of power and control.</p>
<p>Common gaslighting tactics can include denial of the gaslightee’s experience (“That wasn’t what happened!”), escalation (“Why would you question this? I wouldn’t lie to you!”), trivialisation (“You’re too sensitive, this is nothing”), and countering (“That wasn’t what happened, this was”). </p>
<h2>Why now?</h2>
<p>Gaslighting’s re-emergence in our day-to-day vernacular is in part due to a wider societal focus on violence against women. As we move towards a broader understanding of what constitutes abuse, there is growing recognition that psychologically abusive techniques such as gaslighting are often used to unnerve and demoralise others.</p>
<p>Gaslighting is increasingly being recognised as a technique of abuse by groups such as the <a href="http://www.dvrcv.org.au/knowledge-centre/our-blog/gaslighting-stalking-and-intimate-partner-violence">Domestic Violence Resource Centre of Victoria</a> and <a href="https://www.safesteps.org.au/understanding-family-violence/types-of-abuse/psychological-abuse/">Safe Steps</a>. </p>
<p>The term also rebuts a common set of stereotypes: the “crazy ex-girlfriend”, the “bitches be crazy” or “<a href="https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/10/psycho-bitch-the-trope-evolves-from-fatal-attraction-s-alex-forrest-to-gone-girl-s-amy-dunne.html">psycho bitch</a>” refrain and the “hysterical woman”. Gaslighting reframes these cliches: instead of asking whether women are indeed crazy, it questions the motivations of the accuser.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, gaslighting has <a href="https://yourstory.com/2018/10/metoo-gaslighting-begins/">also been used</a> to dismiss those who have employed #MeToo to speak out about their abuse. Comments directed to survivors that they must have “misread the situation” or “imagined the abuse” can in turn point to wider questions about a person’s sanity. </p>
<p>Gaslighting’s application in the public lexicon has become quite broad. For instance, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/trump-is-gaslighting-america-again-here-s-how-fight-it">many</a> <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/03/trump-classic-gaslighter-abusive-relationship-america-column/1445050002/">news</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/14/trumps-gaslighting-is-about-to-get-a-lot-worse/?utm_term=.305360676991">articles</a> have been written about Donald Trump’s so-called gaslighting behaviour towards the American public, in which he has tried to manipulate people into “doubting their reality”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248897/original/file-20181204-133100-1gzuoz1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Donald Trump: various pundits have described his statements as a form of ‘gaslighting’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shawn Thew/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a recent speech, for example, Trump criticised the media for its reaction to his trade tariffs policy, accusing it of broadcasting “fake news” and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-44959340/donald-trump-what-you-re-seeing-and-what-you-re-reading-is-not-what-s-happening">telling people</a>, “what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening”. </p>
<p>But in describing Trump’s behaviour as gaslighting, we lose some of the word’s context: it was developed to describe behaviour altogether more intimate and controlling in nature, and difficult to escape.</p>
<p>Still, aside from the latter example, the growing usage of “gaslighting” as a term is broadly a good thing. It signifies a deeper understanding of what abuse looks like and the many forms it can take.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107888/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessamy Gleeson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The term ‘gaslighting’ is now liberally used but what does it mean and where did it come from?Jessamy Gleeson, Research Officer, School of Global, Urban & Social Studies, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/904252018-01-30T11:34:45Z2018-01-30T11:34:45ZThe art of the public apology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203862/original/file-20180129-89590-874dbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What does it mean when public figures say sorry?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Paul Sancya</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just prior to his sentencing, former USA Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar formally <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/larry-nassar-full-statement/index.html">apologized</a> to the more than 160 women whom he’d sexually abused. He joins a growing list. Over the past few months, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/10/05/harvey-weinstein-scandal-read-his-full-apology/738093001/">many public personalities</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/11/21/the-recent-tide-of-apologies-by-famous-men-have-been-awful-heres-what-the-men-should-have-said/?utm_term=.fa337d9940f0">accused of sexual assault</a> <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/al-franken-makes-a-new-apology-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations-2017-11">have apologized</a> in public. </p>
<p>Many of us at this point are wondering what these apologies mean. Indeed, like others before him, Nassar said, that an adequate apology was impossible. He stated,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There are no words that can describe the depth and breadth of how sorry I am for what has occurred. An acceptable apology to all of you is impossible to write and convey.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What, then, is it that he and other public figures are doing when they say sorry publicly?</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/after-injury-9780190851972?lang=en&cc=us#">forthcoming book</a>, I look at different kinds of public apologies, including the kind of celebrity apologies we’ve witnessed in the past few months. What I argue is that public apologies are a type of performance and therefore should be understood as being different from private.</p>
<h2>What is a public apology?</h2>
<p>Televised public celebrity apologies, watched by millions, are a relatively recent phenomenon. </p>
<p>In his 1952 <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-checkers-speech-after-60-years/262172/">“Checkers speech,”</a> televised live to an American public, Richard Nixon, then Republican candidate for vice president of the United States, defended himself against charges of financial impropriety. Nixon did not explicitly apologize, but as journalist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryn_James">Caryn James</a> noted, the speech began by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/18/us/testing-of-a-president-the-speech-apology-and-defiance-echo-a-nixon-address.html">“sounding apologetic</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203863/original/file-20180129-89593-1ody2b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nixon delivering his ‘Checkers’ speech.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1998, in a televised address to the American public, Bill Clinton apologized for his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton expressed regret but denied responsibility. The apology failed. In a CNN poll taken immediately after, 60 percent of those polled said that Clinton should have explicitly <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/20/time/showtime.html">used the words “I’m sorry.”</a></p>
<p>Less than a month later, at the White House prayer breakfast, Clinton revised the apology. This time Clinton used the language Americans wanted – “I am sorry” – and the biblical terms with which they were familiar – “I have sinned.”</p>
<p>Scholar of public apologies <a href="https://inside.sou.edu/english/faculty/battiste.html">Edwin Battistella</a> noted in his book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/sorry-about-that-9780199300914?cc=us&lang=en&">“Sorry About That”</a> how this was a successful apology. Indeed, this time <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/11/poll/">more people believed</a> they were witnessing sincerity. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=672&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=672&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=672&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203864/original/file-20180129-89550-1qoyr2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Clinton offering an apology at the national prayer breakfast.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And that is the point of a public apology. It can provide public personalities an opportunity to regain public approval. </p>
<h2>The purpose of a public apology</h2>
<p>I would argue that these celebrity apologies are not much different from those offered over criminal violations in court. They are all driven by an ulterior motive. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the case of corporations. As philosopher <a href="https://cola.unh.edu/faculty-member/nick-smith">Nick Smith</a> discusses in his book <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/justice-through-apologies/64C4927EAE2CAD714514FC82FEF1FAFC">“Justice Through Apologies,”</a> they do so to limit their legal liability. Similarly, philosopher <a href="http://homepages.law.asu.edu/%7Ejeffriem/">Jeffrie Murphy</a> <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DoI3AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PT120#v=onepage&q&f=false">explains</a> what it means for someone to apologize to the court when a reduction in their sentences is at stake. Nassar’s apology, offered just prior to his sentencing, was a combination of celebrity and court apology.</p>
<p>Apologies, in other words, try to control the damage.</p>
<p>In today’s consumerist society, the public is God. And so the celebrities apologize to us – the public – in a way that people earlier used to appeal to their God. In 1697, for instance, Judge Samuel Sewall went to South Church in Boston to apologize for his role in the Salem witch trials, in which 20 innocent people were executed in a fit of mass hysteria. He asked his fellow congregants for their “pardon,” but <a href="https://archive.org/details/diarysamuelsewa02sewagoog">his appeal</a> was primarily that “God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon” that sin, and all his other ones.</p>
<p>The public apology today is an act of publicity. Many of the public personalities are appealing to their audience not to boycott their product, which, in other words, is the celebrity. </p>
<h1>Private vs. public</h1>
<p>Private apologies are different. </p>
<p>More often than not, we can assess when someone is sincere by witnessing what she or he does after apologizing. We can see if those who apologize to us have indeed reformed their behavior. We are not in a position to see that in the case of celebrity apologies. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203872/original/file-20180129-89597-c0nbdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Private apologies are different from public ones.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wiertz/6776802972/in/photolist-bjQTqy-akkZ1y-7HbPjN-acwPy2-47NPAt-6iJktX-5LJgpR-4vguS3-5rBscL-9hLLLM-531jsi-pvUZRg-95Qn3C-7BdMsT-bq3L28-amAL7z-5e6FAL-86kbZ5-brUvps-nAP3Qj-dMDrQ9-6fKvP5-5CKX7k-7nXr5R-7wLQ5b-h9WxW4-75bFvC-6pZApM-6SVhTZ-9RXhVZ-7tc1VJ-LtwZr-ahfkhK-2fHWVj-e3LzD6-aw4LnL-ep28L-4JSkTg-pQnjFz-8fjrnc-7VUrzc-79LYiK-77dg8W-efHUD8-cMMgzd-bAUfpX-pPyRZQ-a9DW4Y-62CcMU-eatvfw">Sebastien Wiertz</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A private apology is generally not a performance. Our friends and lovers apologize to us in private to an audience of one, or few. And they are generally not professional performers. Celebrities and other public personalities are apologizing to an audience of millions. </p>
<p>Private apologies are heard, while public apologies are meant to be overheard.</p>
<h2>Why an apology matters</h2>
<p>Nonetheless, apologies matter in public life, just as they do in private. The important thing about all forms of apologies is that they reveal and alert us to the limits of what is acceptable. </p>
<p>In our personal lives, a person who repeatedly apologizes for the same act or for acts of the same type is revealing the deeper problem behind that behavior (anger, for instance, or disrespect). The victim forgives, if she does, on the understanding that the behavior is unacceptable. </p>
<p>This recent wave of public apologies reveal the outrage against crimes against women and that support from powerful institutions for that behavior is no longer acceptable. </p>
<p>Finally, apologies alert us to their own limits. In our private lives, we recognize that the words “I am sorry” are meaningless without a change in behavior.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ashraf Rushdy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Public apologies are a type of performance before a larger audience, and they are to be understood in terms that are different from a private apology.Ashraf Rushdy, Benjamin Waite Professor of the English Language, Wesleyan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/897492018-01-19T15:55:39Z2018-01-19T15:55:39Z20 years since America’s shock over Clinton-Lewinsky affair, public discussions on sexual harassment are changing<p>Twenty years ago, major news outlets <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clinton012198.htm">reported</a> allegations that then-President Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern.</p>
<p>Looking back, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair heralded a sea change in political discourse by normalizing public discussion of sex acts. Today, it is hard to believe that esteemed presidents, from <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/thomas-jefferson-accused-of-having-an-affair-oct-19-1796-243831">Thomas Jefferson</a> to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/14/politics/gallery/jfk-alleged-affairs/index.html">John F. Kennedy</a>, were sheltered from public judgment by a code of decorum that conveniently regarded the subject of sex as beneath the dignity of political discussion. That all changed in the Clinton days when terms like “oral sex” and “semen stain” were catapulted from the domain of hushed whispers to front-page news.</p>
<p>Fast forward to today, and once again the man sitting in the Oval Office is dogged by <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/what-about-the-19-women-who-accused-trump/547724/">allegations</a> of sexual misconduct. As a scholar who has examined public reaction to <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/public-affairs">political sex scandals</a> since the Clinton days, this is hardly where I expected we’d find ourselves in 2018. Twenty years ago, it seemed plausible that difficult conversations spurred by revelation of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair – about issues ranging from sexual harassment to the nature of sexual consent – would lead to lasting changes in the way women and men conducted themselves in the workplace, and well beyond.</p>
<p>But how far have we really come? </p>
<h2>Sexual harassment remains prevalent</h2>
<p>The election to the presidency of a man who boasts of “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html">pussy-grabbing</a>” is an indication that we still have a long way to go.</p>
<p>Today, sexual harassment remains commonplace, despite <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm">legal protections</a> and the introduction of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-the-point-of-sexual-harassment-training-often-to-protect-employers/2017/11/17/18cd631e-c97c-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.6cd374e6cf18">anti-harassment training</a> in many workplaces. <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/report.cfm#_Toc453686298">Surveys report</a> that between 25 percent to 85 percent of women say they have been sexually harassed at work. Even the most conservative of these findings indicate a widespread problem. For women in certain employment sectors – including male-dominated industries like construction or service jobs where workers rely on tips to earn a living wage – rates of sexual harassment and sexual assault are likely to be far higher. </p>
<p>The persistence of workplace sexual harassment is a powerful reminder that gender-based subordination pervades modern life. But that doesn’t mean nothing has changed since the Clinton era. Looking back, three differences between now and then deserve our attention.</p>
<h2>Signs of progress</h2>
<p>First, no longer are the only men held to public account for sexual misconduct those who represent us in the most literal sense – elected officials. Today, prominent figures in entertainment, corporate America, sports and academia are facing public scrutiny for their actions. Already this has led to serious professional consequences for some and may even result in criminal prosecution for others.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202598/original/file-20180119-80171-14iympg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stars wore black at the 75th annual Golden Globe Awards in solidarity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is, however, a risk that the scope of the problem will be minimized by the media’s focus on high-profile perpetrators and the mostly privileged, mostly white women who have drawn attention as victims. The notion that men made powerful by fame or wealth can abuse their power is easy to understand. But a person doesn’t have to be rich or famous to have power over another. The fact is that anywhere there are gender relations, there are power relations.</p>
<p>Second, as more accusations come to light, we are witnessing a shift in the terms of sexual discourse. In the past, the media has fallen into a Victorian-era vernacular when reporting on sexual allegations involving prominent men. Think about it: When is the last time you heard a modern-day journalist use a term like “<a href="http://sexscandalblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/god-to-new-york-times-thou-shalt-not.html">adultery</a>” or “<a href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/05/18/diary-of-a-chambermaid/">chambermaid</a>” outside of covering a sex scandal? </p>
<p>Now, the media faces <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/rape_sexual_abuse_molestation_the_terms_have_become_interchangeable_but.html">sharp criticism</a> for using the noncommittal term “sexual misconduct” when discussing legally actionable crimes, including rape. The shift to more explicit language is important because it helps counter the idea that there is something inherently shameful about naming sexual abuse for what it is.</p>
<p>Finally, sex today is being discussed in terms that are not just personal, but political. In the Clinton era, women like Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky paid a steep price in terms of their own privacy when allegations of presidential sexual misconduct arose. At the time, it often seemed as if these women were the main story. </p>
<p>In contrast, today’s scandalous revelations are quickly leading to conversations about questions of gender equality that implicate all of us. Meanwhile, social media campaigns like #MeToo are drawing attention to the failure of the traditional media to make space for victims to speak in their own voices and on their own terms.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, millions around the world learned of a sexual affair between a president and a young intern. Two decades and countless sex scandals later, stories of sex and power are still roiling the public. This time, however, they are also galvanizing a broad-based movement with concrete demands for change. It’s been a long time coming, and I hope there is no turning back.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89749/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juliet Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While sexual harassment is still all too common, at least we’re having more open conversations about it, and victims are speaking up on their own terms.Juliet Williams, Professor of Gender Studies, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/897182018-01-17T12:49:43Z2018-01-17T12:49:43ZAs it celebrates its 25th birthday, how does the Clinton administration look today?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202146/original/file-20180116-53310-18wfl0u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bill-clinton-42nd-president-gives-thumbs-107411675?src=RdGqj0jAHGp4HNxpPgn4nA-1-36">Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill Clinton is about to mark the 25th anniversary of his inauguration as the 42nd US president. Until the night of November 8 2016, millions of voters and experts assumed that he would be celebrating that milestone as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/opinion/campaign-stops/bill-clinton-a-perfectly-imperfect-first-gentleman.html">First Gentleman</a> in a second Clinton administration, and that when he returned, he would be welcomed by the party and country both. </p>
<p>On both fronts, they were wrong. Instead, Clinton’s quarter-century anniversary on January 20, 2017 is also Donald Trump’s first – and while once beloved of his country, Clinton’s star has apparently started to fall.</p>
<p>For years, Clinton was a popular figure both nationally and within the Democratic Party. His <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaJD3EIXYdw">2012 speech to the Democratic convention</a>, backing Barack Obama’s reelection bid, was enthusiastically received both inside and outside the hall; <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/how-bill-clinton-does-it-080819">Politico</a> wrote that he “stated the case for the 44th president’s reelection in language that was crisper and more compelling than the case Obama so far has made for himself”.</p>
<p>But lately, Clinton’s scent seems to be turning fetid. For the first time since he left office in 2001, <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx">more Americans view Clinton unfavourably than do favourably</a>. After peaking at 69% in 2013, Clinton’s favourability rating has slumped to 45%. This trend is unusual among retired presidents. Most can count on nostalgia to sanctify even the most benighted tenure; even the <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx">once heinously unpopular</a> George W. Bush <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/212633/george-bush-barack-obama-popular-retirement.aspx">enjoyed favourability ratings of 59%</a> as of late 2016.</p>
<p>Two major events kickstarted this unflattering reassessment. First came the 2016 presidential campaign, during which both the Democratic primary and the general election saw his legacy <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/21/hillary-clinton-bill-90s-nostalgia-reform-scandal">picked over without mercy</a>. The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders duel put Bill Clinton’s policies on <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-to-revisit-bill-clintons-welfare-reform/2016/05/28/fe9ce506-2426-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?utm_term=.f79b000ac1d8">welfare</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/glass-steagall/496856/">financial regulation</a>, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36020717">criminal justice reform</a> under the microscope. Meanwhile, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-come-out-swinging-over-nafta-228712">lambasted the North American Free Trade Agreement</a> (NAFTA), signed by Clinton in 1994, as the “worst trade deal ever made”.</p>
<p>More recently, the #MeToo movement has prompted a reassessment of Clinton’s personal history, particularly longstanding, unresolved and unproven <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/19/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-allegations-past">allegations</a> against him of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick">sexual harassment, sexual assault</a>, and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/">even rape</a>. New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a onetime protégé of Hillary Clinton, recently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/17/why-kirsten-gillibrands-bold-statement-that-bill-clinton-shouldve-resigned-is-a-big-deal/?utm_term=.e3526e67fbec">suggested</a> that it would have been “appropriate” for Clinton to have resigned the presidency over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEx8J6sLMsA?wmode=transparent&start=5" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These are the political and personal fissures that still cleave Clinton’s legacy 25 years after he took office, and they can seem impossible to close. Was he a pseudo-liberal who enacted watered-down Republicanism or the saviour who brought the Democrats out of the wilderness? A roguish lothario or a sexual predator? </p>
<h2>A different kind of president</h2>
<p>Clinton was an anomaly from the off. His election marked a transition between generations. He was the first Baby Boomer president and the first not to have served in World War II. He was also a profoundly unlikely president. </p>
<p>1992 was not supposed to be a Democratic year. The incumbent Republican president, George H.W. Bush, was still surfing a wave of popularity following the <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/bush/foreign-affairs">first Gulf War</a>. Better-known Democratic contenders <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2011/04/the-mario-effect-last-time-a-group-of-presidential-challengers-was-this-unimpressive-there-was-a-reason-067223">declined to run</a>, leaving an opening for an obscure Arkansas governor to <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-decisive-new-york-primary-for-the-clintons-again-57857">win the party’s presidential nomination</a>.</p>
<p>Clinton ran as a representative of the <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-10-22/news/9204050594_1_democratic-nominee-bill-clinton-democratic-party-democratic-governors">New Democrat</a> movement, a faction that emerged in response to the party’s continued political misfortunes. The Democratic candidate had lost in every presidential election since 1976, and the New Democrats blamed the party’s leftward shift, which they claimed alienated Middle Americans. They sought to move the party to the centre by embracing market solutions and limited government, rejecting “identity politics”, and avoiding the appearance of dovishness in foreign policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Passing the torch: Bill Clinton takes over from George Bush Senior.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A1993_Clinton_and_Bush_Inauguration.jpg">Smithsonian via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Clinton pursued a New Democrat agenda in the White House, out of both choice and necessity (he had to contend with a Republican-controlled Congress after the 1994 midterms). This makes his legislative legacy a curious hybrid of liberal and conservative measures. </p>
<p>In his first year, Clinton signed a major gun control law, mandating background checks on most firearm purchases, and pushed unsuccessfully to enact sweeping healthcare reform. He also oversaw the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the law that kept commercial and investment banking separate, and signed the Defence of Marriage Act, prohibiting the federal government from recognising same-sex marriages. </p>
<p>But the Clinton presidency will always be defined by its most dramatic confrontation: the impeachment trial that resulted from the revelation that Clinton had conducted an affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Though the conflict was ferocious, Clinton not only survived, but emerged politically strengthened. His approval ratings <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx">peaked at 73% in December 1998</a>, at the end of the impeachment trial. Though dismissed by many at the time as an irrelevant foible, Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky, and the abuse of power that it entailed, are being reevaluated.</p>
<p>If Bill Clinton faces a personal reckoning, what about “Clintonism”? A comparison between Bill Clinton’s two presidential campaigns and that of Hillary Clinton in 2016 reveals a Democratic Party that has been moving leftwards since the 1990s, on both economic and social issues. Though still centrist in tone, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 platform was – to quote <a href="https://berniesanders.com/democrats-adopt-progressive-platform-party-history/">none other than Bernie Sanders himself</a> – the “most progressive platform in party history”.</p>
<p>At one time, it seemed Bill Clinton represented the future of centre-left politics; the “Third Way” philosophy he pioneered was taken up by other leaders, most notably <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1998/sep/22/labour.comment">Tony Blair and New Labour</a>. But now his first inauguration shares an anniversary not with his wife’s, but with Donald Trump’s – and even the party he once led seems to be turning away from his legacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89718/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Andelic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bill Clinton and Donald Trump share an awkward anniversary.Patrick Andelic, Lecturer in American History, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/264262014-05-09T23:23:36Z2014-05-09T23:23:36ZLewinsky, Clinton and ‘Zippergate’ redux 2014<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48107/original/3qhq379v-1399596286.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the late '90s, Monica Lewinsky became part of US political lore and pop culture, inspiring this Los Angeles mural. So what can she add to her story now? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltarrrrr/8387703289/">Hector Ponce 1999/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s scarcely a surprise that, a decade on, we’re still interested in hearing from a president’s mistress. It’s even less surprising that, a decade on, that mistress still wants to talk.</p>
<p>The whys of our fascination, and the whys of Monica Lewinsky’s forthcoming Vanity Fair essay, seem fairly obvious. Humans like to talk about each other. Salacious stories stimulate, salacious stories sell.</p>
<p>Much more interesting are the allegations of Lewinsky finally <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/monica-lewinsky-breaks-decade-of-silence-to-address-her-affair-with-bill-clinton-its-time-to-burn-the-beret-and-bury-the-blue-dress-9328052.html">breaking her silence</a>, of her putting the past behind her <a href="http://www.people.com/article/monica-lewinsky-vanity-fair-interview-bill-clinton-affair">once and for all</a>.</p>
<p>Memoir is well established as a thoroughly beleaguered genre. This doesn’t make the medium worthless – far from it – but the limitations need to be acknowledged. </p>
<p>Memoir is one person’s side of a story and – and this is where the forthcoming Lewinsky essay gets interesting – it’s a tale told at a fixed point in time. It’s useful as a psychological exercise, sure, and valuable as a piece of storytelling, but limited in its contribution to history. Limited, and perfectly illustrative of literature’s Unreliable Narrator. </p>
<p>In one of those odd coincidences, two friends in the space of two days revealed to me their results of the <a href="http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/docs/self-testingforbipolardisorder.pdf">Bipolar Self-Test</a> hosted by the Black Dog Institute’s website. Reading through the questions, my own lack of bipolarity seemed confirmed and, more interestingly, I felt fairly confident that at least one of my exes had it. Maybe two.</p>
<p>And it’s my post-fact dabbling in diagnostics that has me thinking about the Vanity Fair essay.</p>
<p>While with them, it never occurred to me that any of my partners might have a mental illness. Love and intimacy, in my experience, tend not to share a bed with mental acuity. Years on, and while I might no longer be under the spell of amour, equally I doubt I’m any better placed to be objective about situations that were emotional rather than rational experiences.</p>
<p>Childhoods, for example, are a time compulsively idealised. For many, the stress and complexity of adulthood casts a sepia tint on youth. As though growing up was just one long, endless summer; that it was all carefree and that everything seemed possible.</p>
<p>If most of us had penned a memoir during our youth, I suspect anxieties and anguish would have featured more prominently than we’d like to remember. It’s the young, afterall, who are penning all that bad angsty poetry. My view is that we’re all substantially happier in our memories of childhood than we were at the time.</p>
<p>So does our adult tendencies of putting childhood “into context” – of comparing it to our current circumstances and recalling it all as innocent and blithe – mean that how we really felt as kids was less real? Does laughingly reflecting on the fears that troubled us as children mean we were any less scared at the time? Of course not.</p>
<p>The passing of time helps enormously with interpretation. Much less so, however, with precise recollections. </p>
<p>Getting out of relationships – having time and space away from them – inevitably provides new insight, new interpretations, and enables us to identify patterns that at the time were skewed by sex and exquisite suffering. But this doesn’t make those sentiments felt when it was all hot and heavy any less real, less genuine or less important.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48109/original/29tqvffc-1399597163.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The story of 20-something Monica Lewinsky does not become the definitive truth for being retold at 40.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lewinsky was in her 20s when she had sexual relations with one of the world’s most powerful men. She pursued a course of action that led to her preserving a semen-stained dress, testifying to the insertion of a cigar tube into her vagina and ultimately the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton">impeachment of President Bill Clinton</a>.</p>
<p>That all happened. Those watershed moments in US political history weren’t about interpretation, nor do they require a decade to be mulled over. The facts are well known.</p>
<p>So what more can Lewinsky add to the story now? A decade on, and what possible difference does her regret make? Her embarrassment? Her maturity?</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, years on, and she’s cringing and recoiling and deeply regretting choices in friends, in lovers, in hairstyles. Of course. </p>
<p>And, because she’s 40 years old now, no doubt she has developed very strong views about her actions, about his. She’s no longer the intern who had sexual relations with the president, rather, she’s an older, more worldly woman reflecting. Reconceptualising. Maybe even <em>rewriting</em>.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly it’ll be interesting to read how Lewinsky feels about being the internet’s first political scandal. About her permanent place as a pop-culture punchline. The supposed spilling of her story will, undoubtedly, move many issues of Vanity Fair.</p>
<p>But it’s a retrospective that we’ll be getting, not some definitive truth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26426/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Rosewarne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s scarcely a surprise that, a decade on, we’re still interested in hearing from a president’s mistress. It’s even less surprising that, a decade on, that mistress still wants to talk. The whys of our…Lauren Rosewarne, Senior Lecturer, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.