Sunday, June 27, 1999 | 1:48 a.m.
There was a grain of truth to Dan Olivier's June 20 diatribe in the Sun: Many of the people who attack Bill Clinton would have been isolationists or fascists during former President Franklin Roosevelt's time. Of course, FDR nationalized businesses, tried to stack the Supreme Court with six extra justices and herded Japanese-Americans into concentration camps (after the "surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor) simply over their race.
By modern standards, FDR was almost as much a fascist as the Axis he fought, if not quite as much as our wartime comrade, "Uncle Joe."
America can be placed on the good or evil side of any issue, depending on where you want to slant the evidence. Olivier's logic ran out on him when he attacked former President George Bush for killing off "defenseless retreating Iraqi soldiers" during the Gulf War. All they did was torture Kuwaiti civilians, the poor dears!
Substitute "Serb" for "Iraqi" in that quote, and what's the difference between then and now? None. So why attack conservatives for their "crocodile tears" if you feel now the way they did then?
It's intriguing that leftists who ridicule the "black and white" morality of their opponents themselves refuse to see things as anything other than "liberal-bad." In the real world, people have very complex reasons for doing what they do, which often places them on both sides of an issue over time. Simply because some people are predictable stereotypes doesn't mean everyone else is.
Take me, for instance. I am one of those folks who praises the Reagan era and has nothing good to say about Bill Clinton. But am I willing to admit that I could have been wrong about the Republicans when they held power? Sure.
In 1992 I voted for Clinton, because I thought I could never be more cynical about a president than I was about George Bush. And I was wrong about that. Boy, was I wrong about that.
JAMES GILLEN
archive
