The Clinton Presidency and the Constitutional System

Bill Clinton and the Character Factor in Perspective

Bill Clinton and the Character Factor in Perspective james p. pfiffner In the 1990s the term “character factor” was often used by politicians and the media to criticize Bill Clinton and indicate his personal failings. Whatever else is involved in a person’s character, telling the truth or lying is one of the important indicators of character. Lying under oath was the ostensible reason for President Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998. Now that some time has passed, it may be useful to put President Clinton’s lies into the broader context of the modern American presidency. This paper will consider the issue of presidential lies and juxtapose them to the lies of other recent presidents. The purpose of this paper is not to excuse or exonerate, but merely to compare the behavioral dimensions of presidential character as they pertain to truthfulness and telling lies. Most people lie occasionally in their lives, but much of this lying is benign and smoothes the daily social interactions of most societies. For instance, when introduced, we may say “I am pleased to meet you,” even if we would rather not interact with the particular individual. Or when asked how we are, we may say “fine,” even if we are not feeling particularly fine that day. Most individuals also tell “white lies” when asked about the appearance of a friend: “Oh, that outfit looks good on you,” when in fact we think it is tacky. In matters of substance, people tell lies that are more or less justified by the circumstances, but public officials are particularly bound to tell the truth in dealing with public policy. Democracy is based on the presumption that the people have the legitimate right to elect public officials, and if those officials lie about what the government is doing, it becomes impossible for citizens to cast informed ballots for public office. The president of the United States is thus bound by the obligations of all public officials in a democracy. But in addition to the duty not to mislead citizens about the actions of the government, presidents are also seen as role models in the United States and thus doubly bound to act in truthful ways. 222 • james p. pfiffner Presidential Lies This paper will examine some lies of modern presidents and categorize them as relatively minor, serious, and very serious. But, first, it is necessary to admit that in certain limited circumstances presidents may not only be justified in lying but duty-bound to lie. Such would be the case when the safety of US soldiers or national security operations might be put in jeopardy if the president were to speak the truth. Such was the case when Vice President Richard Nixon lied about his position on Cuba in the 1960 presidential campaign. John Kennedy had criticized the Eisenhower administration for not sufficiently supporting opposition to the revolution of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Nixon knew that his administration was arming and training Cuban exiles to invade Cuba in an attempt to overthrow Castro. But he felt that he could not disclose the secret operations, or it would undermine the operation and put the soldiers’ lives in jeopardy. Thus, despite his real feelings, he countered Kennedy’s charge by arguing that attacking Cuba would be a foreign-policy disaster. This amounted to a lie, and he deceived the American public about his real judgment and covered up the Eisenhower administration’s actions with respect to Cuba. This was a clear and deliberate lie, but in the context of US actions toward Cuba at that time, a justifiable one from Nixon’s perspective.1 He was acting honorably, even if one disagrees with US policy toward Cuba and thinks that the planned invasion of Cuba (at the Bay of Pigs) was not in the best interest of US national security. One could posit other situations in which presidents might be obligated to lie. For instance, in 1980 “student” radicals had taken more than forty US citizens hostage in Tehran, and the Carter administration was trying to secure their release. One such attempt (though aborted) was a hostage rescue operation by US special forces that was underway in April of 1980. If at a press conference President Carter had been asked whether the United States was undertaking any military operation to free the hostages, one could reasonably argue that President Carter would have been obligated to lie under such circumstances (a “no comment” would not have been...