- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Over the past few years, I have been particularly harsh in my criticism
of Bill Clinton — but I have always tried to be fair. Even though the depth
of my contempt for him is bottomless, it is impossible for me to remain
silent when I see him suffering a serious injustice. Reluctantly, but in the
spirit of honest commentary, I rise to his defense.
Recently, one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, the New York Post, took a
poll to identify the 25 “Most Evil People” of the millennium. The paper
provided a long list of notoriously wicked people, and asked readers to pick
the most evil. Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham were not on the list, but
made a good showing as “write-ins.”
Nineteen-thousand readers participated. Adolf Hitler barely edged out
Bill Clinton for first place, and Josef Stalin came in third. Pol Pot was
fourth, and Nazi death-camp doctor Josef Mengele was fifth. Hillary Rodham
came in sixth, followed by Saddam Hussein, Adolf Eichman, Charles Manson and
Idi Amin, which rounds out the Top 10.
The injustice is not that Bill Clinton was voted in as one of the top,
world-class, evil men in the last thousand years. The injustice is that,
with a level playing field, he might have come in first.
It is obvious that Clinton would have scored even better on the poll if
the mainstream media and the Democratic Party had not stayed for so long in
abject denial of their leader’s brazen in-your-face degeneracy and
corruption. If he had tattooed “I AM EVIL” on his forehead, the media would
have explained it away as a birthmark, Hillary would have claimed that it
was the result of a vicious, right-wing DNA conspiracy, and 43 percent of
the American public would have believed them.
For the poll to have been fair, more consideration should have been given
to the environment within which Clinton works. While Hitler and Stalin had
the enthusiastic support of 100 percent of the media in their countries,
Clinton has never been able to count on the support of more than about 92
percent of the American media. And while Stalin and Hitler sent the Secret
Service and storm troopers to “take care” of opponents, the best Clinton
could do was send the IRS. And as vile and vicious as the IRS is, it is no
match for brown-shirted Nazis or KGB thugs.
The point is that Clinton has not had a clear field for reaching his full
potential. Think of what he might have been able to do without the
constraints of a strong opposition party, a testy Supreme Court, the Pope,
Southern Baptists, Ken Starr, Rush Limbaugh, and Paula Jones.
Why is this important? It is important because topping the list as the
most evil man of the millennium is Clinton’s only chance for any kind of
legacy. Second place simply won’t get it done. It is not good enough that
Adolf Hitler is Alpha Evil while Bill Clinton trails along as Beta Evil.
What kind of legacy is that?
Any student of history understands that, in the right time and place, the
justification of evil is more than possible. Josef Stalin rationalized his
mass murders to himself and to many American intellectual elitists with
these words: “You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves” and “A single
death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” Adolf Hitler convinced
an entire nation that Jews were a “virus” infecting the human gene pool, and
that getting rid of them was virtuous.
If anybody could make a virtue of being tops on an evil list, Clinton
could. The times are overripe for it. Given the trends in moral decay and
social rot, it is entirely possible that it will not be long before the
distinction between good and evil will have either completely disappeared or
been totally reversed.
You can hear the Clintonese: “Doesn’t it depend on what the meaning of
evil is? Is evil done in pursuit of a good result truly evil?” and “Who are
you to judge what is in another man’s heart?”
The second place rating was an interim judgment. Clinton is an evil
work-in-progress. Is the presidency of the United Nations and a world
platform in his future? Infanticide without tears and the unrepented deaths
of innocents at Waco, Texas, and in Yugoslavia hint at the capacity for
grand-scale massacres and wars, justified as necessary for the defense of
human rights and freedoms.
Although Hillary was the only women to make the Top 25 list, beating out
such contenders as Jack the Ripper and Ivan the Terrible, she hit the evil
glass ceiling and only placed sixth. It’s a travesty. Were it not for the
good old bad-boys club, she might have edged out both Bill and Adolf.