A Masterclass in Bothsiderism
Kathleen Parker compares Bill Clinton to an animal, because both sides are just as bad.
by Ben Cohen
If you’d like to see how the commentariat works to create a never ending political horserace, look no further than Kathleen Parker’s latest screed in the Washington Post.
In what should be regarded as a masterclass in bothsiderism, Parker turned a perfectly reasonable article about Donald Trump’s corruption into a muddled rant about the Clintons. The article is confusing, particularly given the headline indicates Parker agrees with Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” thesis.
Parker then goes on to argue the exact opposite by saying the Clintons got what they deserved:
When then-first lady Hillary Clinton first mentioned a “vast right-wing conspiracy” — the enemy factions, i.e., Republicans that she said were out to get her husband — she was half right. They were out to get him. What she didn’t acknowledge was that Bill Clinton had it coming once he’d fouled the people’s house with behavior unbefitting a housebroke dog.
Yet how nearly quaint his relatively boyish escapades seem today, compared with Donald Trump’s X-rated engagement with a porn star while wife Melania was recovering from childbirth. I suppose one could point out that Trump’s brief encounter during a golf tournament happened before he became president, while Clinton abused a young employee in the Oval Office in clear violation of workplace law.
Whatever you might think of Bill Clinton, the idea that his affair with Monica Lewinsky constituted ‘abuse’ is not only manipulative, but absurd. Lewinsky was an educated, consenting adult when she worked in the White House. Furthermore, contrary to Parker’s assertion, no laws were broken given there was no evidence Clinton sexually harassed Lewinsky at the time. The affair was certainly distasteful and not what one should expect from the President of the United States. But if both parties consented to the relationship and were of legal age, there is very little the law has to say about it.
The rest of Parker’s article outlines the very real prospect of a “reelected President Trump” weaponizing “the FBI and the Justice Department to punish political opponents.” Parker says “this sounds like a conspiracy to me.”
Apparently Parker sees no connection between the deranged right wing conspiracy theories the Clintons were subjected to from the 90’s onwards (that include mass murder and child sex rings) and the MAGA movement. To columnists like Parker, Trump is an anomaly and not a symptom of modern conservatism — a popular theory in the media that gives them license to ‘both-sides’ every issue imaginable.
Why did Parker bother with the Hillary Clinton analogy if she claims Clinton was wrong about her husband’s detractors? It’s because purveyors of bothsiderism must always keep the Clintons in the conversation, despite neither of them being relevant for almost a decade. Donald Trump made sure Bill Clinton — who had left office in January of 2001 — was front and center of his campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Because if Bill Clinton was “one of the great woman abusers of all time,” then all women abusers were OK.
Parker is doing her bit to perpetuate this nonsense, even in 2024. Yes, Trump is bad, but the Clintons are terrible too.
To be fair Parker’s political prognostications have always been terrible. This is what she wrote on the eve of the 2016 election:
If Trump wins, he’ll be held more or less in check by the House and Senate because that’s the way our system of government is set up. Not even Republicans are eager to follow Trump’s lead.
There won’t be a wall. He won’t impose any religion-based immigration restrictions, because even Trump isn’t that lame-brained. He’ll dress up and behave at state dinners and be funny when called upon. He’ll even invite the media to the White House holiday party. He won’t nuke Iran for rude gestures. He won’t assault women. He and Vladimir Putin will hate each other, respectfully.
When you only want to see a horse race, that is apparently all you can ever see.
Read the latest for Banter Members:
Republicans In Disarray
by Bob Cesca WASHINGTON, DC – There’s an old quote from early 20th Century comedian Will Rogers: “I’m not a member of an organized political party, I’m a Democrat.” It stuck for the longest time because Democrats would often confirm the observation. Never was that more apparent than during the 1968 Democratic convention i…
I'm shocked at how poorly written that piece is. It's as if she had 15 minutes to get 'er done and she did it. She could easily have kept the Clintons out of it, but then she would have had to write something more well-rounded and that would have taken longer. No doubt she was on deadline.
And someone please tell Kathleen that it was REAGAN who was the Teflon president and not Clinton.
No, everything clung to Clinton. The Right Wing made sure of that.
Trump tried to overturn an election that he lost decisively and has ever since refused to acknowledge that he lost. He's going to follow Project 2025 if he is returned to the White House. The analysis begins and ends right there with me, as it should with anyone who is not part of the cult. That includes the media.