AC : “This allowance, alas, cannot be made. Even if I were to accept your thesis about ‘The President as a regular Human Being’ – still his circumstances are not regular. The decisions that he faces – and very frequently - affect lives of billions. The conflicting pressures that he is under, gigantic amounts of information that he must digest, enormity of tasks facing him and strains and stresses that are surely results of these – all call for a special human alloy. If cracks are found in this alloy in room temperature – it raises doubts regarding its ability to withstand harsher conditions. If President lies concerning a personal matter, no matter how significant – who will guarantee veracity rather than prevarication in matters more significant to us ? If he is afraid of a court of law – how is he likely to command our armies in a time of war ? If he is evasive in his answers to Grand Jury – how can we rely on his resolve and determination when confronting world leaders and when faced with extreme situations ? If he loses his temper over petty matters – who will guarantee his coolheadedness when it is really required ? If criminal in small, household matters – why not in international arena ?”

DC : “Because this continuum is false. There is little correlation between reactive patterns in personal realms – and their far relatives in public domain. Implication by generalization is a logical fallacy. The most adulterous, querulous, and otherwise despicable people have been superb, far sighted statesmen. The most generous, benevolent, easygoing ones have become veritable political catastrophes. The public realm is not personal realm writ large. It is true that leader's personality interacts with his circumstances to yield policy choices. But relevance of his sexual predilections in this context is dubious indeed. It is true that his morals and general conformity to a certain value system will influence his actions and inactions – influence, but not determine them. It is true that his beliefs, experience, personality, character and temperament will colour way he does things – but rarely what he does and rarely more than colour. Paradoxically, in times of crisis, there is a tendency to overlook moral vices of a leader (or, for that matter, his moral virtues). If a proof was needed that moral and personal conduct are less relevant to proper leadership – this is it. When it really matters, we ignore these luxuries of righteousness and get on with business of selecting a leader. Not a symbol, not a standard bearer, not a superman. Simply a human being – with all flaws and weaknesses of one – who can chart water and navigate to safety flying in face of adverse circumstances.”

AC : “Like everything else in life, electing a leader is a process of compromise, a negotiation between ideal and real. I just happen to believe that a good leader is one who is closer to ideal. You believe that one has to be realistic, not to dream, not to expect. To me, this is mental death. My criticism is a cry of pain of disillusionment. But if I have to choose between deluding myself again and standing firmly on a corrupt and degenerate ground – I prefer, and always will, levity of dreams.”

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

DC : “So you agree that there are lies and there are lies ? That lying is not a monolithic offence ? That some lies are worse than others, some are permissible, some even ethically mandatory ?”

AC : “No, I do not. To lie is to do a morally objectionable thing, no matter what circumstances. It is better to shut up. Why didn't President invoke Fifth Amendment, right not to incriminate himself by his own lips ?”

DC : “Because as much information is contained in abstaining to do something as in doing it and because if he did so, he would have provoked riotous rumours. Rumours are always worse than truth. Rumours are always worse than most defiled lie. It is better to lie than to provoke rumours.”

AC : “Unless your lies are so clearly lies that you provoke rumours regarding what is true, thus inflicting a double blow upon public peace that you were mandated to and undertook to preserve …”

DC : “Again, you make distinctions between types of lies – this time, by their efficacy. I am not sure this is progress. Let me give you examples of three cases : where one would do morally well to tell truth, where one would achieve morally commendable outcomes only by lying and case where lying is as morally permissible as telling truth. Imagine a young sick adult. Her life is at peril but can be saved if she were to agree to consume a certain medicine. This medicament, however, will render her sterile. Surely, she must be told truth. It should be entirely her decision how to continue his life : in person or through her progeny. Now, imagine that this young woman, having suffered greatly already, informed her doctor that should she learn that her condition is terminal and that she needs to consume medicines with grave side effects in order to prolong it or even to save it altogether – she is determined to take her life and has already procured means to do so. Surely, it is mandatory to lie to this young woman in order to save her life. Imagine now third situation : that she also made a statement that having a child is her only, predominant, all pervasive, wish in life. Faced with two conflicting statements, some may choose to reveal truth to her – others, to withhold it, and with same amount of moral justification.”

AC : “And what are we to learn from this ?”

DC : “That moral life is a chain of dilemmas, almost none of which is solvable. The President may have lied in order to preserve his family, to protect his only child, to shield his aides from embarrassing legal scrutiny, even to protect his nation from what he perceived to have been destructive zeal of special prosecutor. Some of his lies should be considered at least common, if not morally permissible.”

AC : “This is a slippery slope. There is no end to this moral relativism. It is a tautology. You say that in some cases there are morally permissible reasons to lie. When I ask you how come - you say to me that people lie only when they have good reasons to lie. But this crux of your mistake : good reasons are not always sufficient, morally permissible, or even necessary reasons. Put more plainly : no one lies without a reason. Does fact that a liar has a reason to lie – absolve him ?”

DC : “Depends what is reason. This is what I tried to establish in my little sad example above. To lie about a sexual liaison – even under oath – may be morally permissible if intention is to shield other meaningful individuals from harm, or in order to buttress conditions, which will allow one to fulfil one's side of a contract. The President has a contract with American people, sealed in two elections. He has to perform. It is his duty no less than he has a duty to tell truth. Conflict arises only when two equally powerful principles clash. The very fact that there is a controversy in public demonstrates moral ambiguity of this situation. The dysfunction of American presidency has already cost trillions of dollars in a collapsing global economy. Who knows how many people died and will die in pursuit of high principle of vincit omnia veritas (the truth always prevails) ? If I could prove to you that one person – just one person - committed suicide as a result of financial turmoil engendered by Clinton affair, would you still stick to your lofty ideals ?”

AC : “You inadvertently, I am sure, broached heart of this matter. The President is in breach of his contracts. Not one contract – but many. As all of us do – he has a contract with other fellow beings, he is a signatory to a Social Treaty. One of articles of this treaty calls to respect Law by not lying under oath. Another calls for striving to maintain a generally truthful conduct towards other signatories. The President has a contract with his wife, which he clearly violated, by committing adultery. Professing to be a believing man, he is also in breach of his contract with his God as set forth in Holy Scriptures. But President has another, very powerful and highly specific contract with American people. It is this contract that has been violated savagely and expressly by President.”

DC : “The American people does not seem to think so, but, prey, continue …”

(continued)

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com