CLINTON'S MANY SCANDALS NUMBING AMERICAN PUBLIC.

Byline: Joe Gelman

WHEN Bill Clinton crawled his way out of the Ozarks and made it to Washington in 1992, he promised ``the most ethical administration in U.S. history.'' Since that time, scandals, charges of inappropriate conduct, and just plain acts of bizarre behavior have become so numerous and routine, that it is almost impossible for the average citizen to either keep up with, comprehend, or even maintain a sense of outrage about them.

I have this funny feeling that is exactly what the Clinton administration is counting on; that average folks will become so numb by the sheer magnitude and complexities of the numerous charges flying around, that most will throw their hands up and choose to tune out, explaining the whole thing away in terms of ``business as usual,'' and ``what do you expect from politicians'' and ``everybody does it.''

Over the next few paragraphs, I'm going to paint a picture of the Clinton administration that I am sure many folks will be able to identify with. A random, rapid fire presentation of names, terms and events that have taken root in our political culture over the past few years.

If you get bored reading through the litany, try to stick with it, because there's a point to all of this:

Filegate, Travelgate, Indogate, Nannygate, Whitewater, Castle Grande, Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan, the Rose Law Firm, convicted business partners Jim and Susan McDougal, David Hail, cattle futures, the felon Webster Hubbell, guilty Arkansas Gov. Guy Tucker, missing subpoenaed documents mysteriously appearing in the private White House living quarters.

Congressional hearings, independent councils, special prosecutors, cover-ups, hush money, subpoenas, pleading the fifth, legal defense funds, draft evasion, marital infidelity, sexual harassment, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, boxers vs. briefs, imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Ghandi, I smoked but didn't inhale, don't ask don't tell. Midnight basketball, Somalia, Iranian arms to Bosnia. Chinese arms merchants, Mafia lords, bank embezzlers, liars, felon swindlers and fraud artists invited to White House coffees.

Foster's suicide, Espy's resignation, O'Leary's travels, Cisneros investigation, Atkins exit, Bruce Lindsey the unindicted co-conspirator, Nussbaum's departure, Zoe Baird, Lani Guenier, Dick Morris, Joycelyn Elders, Bobby Inman, Craig Livingston, Buddhist monk fund-raisers, the Lincoln Bedroom rent-outs, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, Wang Jun, The Lippo Group, money laundering, ``I have no recollection of that senator.''

I could easily fill an additional 30 paragraphs, but I think you get the picture.

If I were to continue the almost limitless list, I would probably lose you, the reader, if I haven't lost you already.

And that is exactly my point.

The more numerous and more complex the scandals are, the less likely folks are to pay attention. After all, there is a limit to one's attention span, even for the minority of us who are deeply interested in the workings of our government.

Yet there is a serious price to pay for this numbness, and the biggest price is that the level of expectations that most Americans have from their leaders has subconsciously diminished to almost nonexistent levels. Our standards, under Bill Clinton, have virtually disappeared without most folks even noticing.

The theory of the frog

I would attribute that to the frog in boiling water syndrome. If a frog is thrown into a pot of boiling water, he jumps right out immediately.

But if the frog is put in a pot full of room-temperature water, which is slowly brought to the boiling point, the frog will sit in the water, adjusting itself to the rising water temperature until it's too late and it's totally cooked.

That is exactly what is happening to the American public in its reaction to the Clinton scandals. When Clinton was first elected president, most folks already knew that he was a deeply flawed individual, but were willing to tolerate his flaws if he would only agree to behave himself, keep his zipper up, and keep half of the promises he made on the campaign trail.

Nobody was really surprised when a scandal broke out here and there. But as the scandals became more and more numerous, complex and serious in nature, the public, just like the frog, began to adjust. Systematically lowering expectations, and lowering standards, until our expectations and standards became virtually nonexistent, and we began to tune out.

We have become the unwitting victims of creeping incrementalism. What would have been considered an intolerable outrage bordering on grounds for impeachment only a few short years ago, has by now become standard operating procedure.

Practices that might have been considered corrupt business as usual in a relatively small backwater place like Little Rock, Ark., have now been imported by the Clintons to Washington, D.C., and we have quietly come to be accepted as our national standards. Our capital has been utterly contaminated, and the fumigator is off having a beer somewhere.

In many cases the national press have been willing culprits in the collapse of ethical standards in Washington. The Clinton administration has been given the benefit of the doubt more than any administration in modern history.

If Clinton were a Republican president, impeachment hearings would have been under way a long time ago. But with Clinton, serious improprieties, violations of ethical standards and law are considered minor transgressions. Kind of like going 50 mph in a 55 mph zone. It's just a question of degree you see, and after all, what do you expect from Bubba? Right?

And there is sickening little explanation for everything.

Explaining if away

Clinton didn't invite fat cat strangers to lodge in the Lincoln Bedroom in exchange for sizable donations, he didn't host private White House coffees for the rich and powerful seeking influence.

Oh no, he didn't sell the White House at all. According to him, he simply invited close ``personal friends,'' thousands of them, who just happened to contribute millions upon millions of dollars to the DNC, by total coincidence, apparently.

Orwellian doublespeak and flat-out lies have become routine, almost a daily occurrence by now, that it is difficult to keep track. And the standards for what is ethical, or even legal, keeps changing every day.

At first, the president declared that ``no solicitation took place in the White House,'' and therefor no laws were broken. Then, when it turned out that Vice President Al Gore solicited contributions from his White House office, and the president quite possibly did the same, the standard suddenly changed. The person being solicited on the other end of the phone was outside of the White House, they explained, therefor, no solicitation actually took place in the White House.

Passing the buck

When it was discovered that the first lady's chief of staff, Maggie Williams, accepted a $50,000 contribution to the DNC in the White House, the explanation was that she did not ``solicit'' the contribution, but just facilitated it by passing it along to the DNC. Therefor no laws were broken.

Doublespeak, doublespeak, doublespeak. Shameless lying, cynical, unprincipled, self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical doublespeak, directly from the mouth of the president of the United States of America. Do they take us for fools? Do they think we're all a bunch of morons? Could they possibly insult our intelligence any more?

The answer I suspect is yes, because most folks have stopped paying attention.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: President Clinton pushes for free TV time to candidates as former newsman Walter Cronkite listens.

Associated Press