Believe It or Not: We're Living in Bill Clinton’s Moral World of Politics

Its was all done in the service of one man: Bill Clinton.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Texas Insider Report) — They kept up the drumbeat for eight solid years. While it had other beneficiaries – the most influential figure in setting the party’s agenda for four decades was, after all, Ted Kennedy – this was all done in the service of one man: Bill Clinton.

Thirty years ago, the entire Democrat Party set out to convince the country that the character and morals of their most admired male leaders were irrelevant – especially as regards how they treated the opposite sex in matters sexual.

Leaders “compartmentalize,” Democrats told us. Only prudes care about whether we are led by people of good character. We should be more sophisticated like the French, and not care. Just put is aside.

We should, in fact, elevate that refusal to care to such a high level of principle, that sexual misconduct is even a defense of felonies, of abuse of official powers, and of predation on female subordinates in the workplace.

This unified moral-philosophical message was carried forward on the now familiar societal "character" basis by Democrats – not just for  their elected officials, their ever cooperative messaging partner apparatus known as "the Press," but also for their pundit class and their allies in the entertainment world, and the supposedly objective academia.

It mattered not whether any of the drumbeat was sincere – virtually everyone in America knew is was not. And then the irony of all ironies – with no less than Joe Biden carrying out the attack as chaiman of the Senate Judiciary Committee – the very same people so fiercely defending the irrelevancy of sexual predation in the workplace had only a few years before the Clarence Thomas–Anita Hill "public lynching" hearings in 1991.

Sexual harassment – like "Racism" – has long been used as the Democrat's most pressing issue of our times. Except, that is, when it isn't –  meaning when it involves them, which most the time somehow seems to be the case.

The far more important point than its sincerity – or lack thereof – is that it succeeded. Some agreed with it, and those who didn’t accepted that it had carried the day and that resisting was a despised, even waste-of-time minority position.

Democrats in the 1990s even proved that – with the help of a liberal and cooperating media – you could circle the wagons on a party-line basis... and win! Republicans were the who paid the price for trying to impeach Clinton over his lying about the Monica Lewinski daliances duringin the 1998–2000 Congressional Elections. Democrats won!

The abiding outcome is that Bill Clinton and his defenders had permanently changed the game – and the abiding lesson is that the American people could be persuaded to buy the argument.

A new, Democrat-Media-Liberal Machine had been created, and a blueprint for not just surviving personal scandal, but for aggressively dismissing its significance had been designed. A philosophical structure in the media for selling that argument had been built as well.

That world eventually even gave cover for the behavior of the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein.

Now – with the victory of Ken Paxton in the Texas Republican Senate primary and the near victory of Graham Platner in the Maine Democrat Senate primary – the question the question of "How did we ever get here?" has resurfaced.

If you’re wondering why terrible people such as Graham Platner or Ken Paxton think they can run for major public office, this is why: It's because one of the nation's two major political parties succeeded in persuading the American people 30 years ago to stop caring about Morals & Character.

Ever since, we've lived in the politically moral world made by the Bill Clinton character defense arguments.