|
Article Excerpt
During 1998 and 1999, President Bill Clinton faced a series of "kategoria," or accusations, regarding his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Led by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the Congress, the media, and the public all played multiple roles during this unfolding drama, each acting either by turn or sometimes simultaneously as accuser, witness, judge. The tenor of accusations changed repeatedly as new evidence against Clinton gradually emerged; each fresh revelation not only complicated the President's task of offering an adequate self-defense, or "apologia," but also called into question his previous attempts. In spite of its etymological kinship with the word "apology," "apologia" refers to any defense of oneself or one's actions. The rhetorical tradition identifies four possible "stases" or choices of pivotal places from which an apologist might take a stand against accusers: issues of fact, definition, jurisdiction, and quality. Because the stases' defense strategies are largely incompatible with each other, a credible apologist usually selects among them based on the nature of the accusation faced (see Ryan, 1982, 1984) and the specific audience responsible for deciding that kategoria-apologia contest.
This essay contends that Clinton survived the Lewinsky scandal because he employed a graduated apologia strategy that progressed through the stases. The kategoria and the nature of the evidence against him changed constantly. As it was made public, each wave of new evidence refocused the nature of the charges against Clinton and revised or enlarged the pool of recognized judges and range of potential consequences. Further, as a national figure in a media age, there was pressure for Clinton to respond immediately to each development, without knowing if or when the charges against him would change again. Clinton made more than 20 public statements during the Lewinsky scandal's 1998-1999 duration, statements that ranged from denials to admissions, from assurances of cooperation to questions about the process's legitimacy, and from calls for national unity to politically divisive counter-attacks. As he dealt with new developments, Clinton also needed to avoid any further disclosures that might help his accusers. Viewed as a contiguous set rather than as discrete apologia, his twenty-plus statements formed a graduated series of stasis-centered responses in which each defense included the minimal amount of detail possible, exercised ambiguity to preserve future access to the stases not featured prominently in that statement, and over time moved from an emphasis on denial to an emphasis on jurisdiction and definition then finally to an emphasis on quality. The scandal's highest stakes were criminal and civil penalties and the Clinton presidency itself. Ultimately, although with his credibility in tatters, the President salvaged both his office and avoided post-presidency prosecution.
Beyond better appreciating this particular case, understanding Clinton's progressive apologia is important for at least two reasons. First, it emphasizes the importance of studying apologia that takes more complex forms than the established single pivotal speech (e.g., Nixon's 1952 "Checkers" speech; Edward Kennedy's 1969 "Chappaquiddick" address). Viewed as discrete apologia, most of Clinton's many statements were judged inadequate, as further evidenced by the rhetor's felt need to continue issuing and varying his self-defenses. The Clinton case offers a well-documented instance in which the kategoria continually evolved and called forth multiple responses and in which the influence of the serial apologia as a whole differed from its discrete parts. A few apologia studies (Henry, 1988; Heisey, 1988) have suggested the utility of studying the evolution of rhetorical accusations and multiple self-defense speech sets. With some notable exceptions, largely centered on corporations' image restoration campaigns (Benoit, 1995; Benoit & Brinson, 1994; Huxman & Bruce, 1995; Hearit, 1995) or an apologist's struggle toward symbolic perfection in response to "hierarchical psychosis" rather than strategic need (Moore, 1997), apologia studies tend to focus on single apologists responding in a single public statement to a well-defined kategoria. Existing scholarship on Clinton's Lewinsky scandal apologia also focuses on single major speeches, such as the August 17, 1998 address (Simons, 2000). In an age when media's reach, insatiable appetite for new content, and competition for users triggers both rapid disclosure of kategoria still forming and an expectation of immediate public response by the accused, understanding the rhetorical dynamics and strategic possibilities of progressive apologia for individual rhetors facing breaking crises offers promising insights.
Second, Clinton's progressive apologia is notable because its shift among stases seemed to promote, rather than interfere with, his successful avoidance of the accusations' worst: consequences. Traditionally, the four stases are treated largely as discrete alternative defenses among which an accused must choose. For instance, Halford Ross Ryan explicitly rejected the possibility that an apologist who uses the stasis of fact (i.e., denying involvement in an unsavory act) also can argue plausibly the stases of jurisdiction (e.g., where the accused argues that a particular audience is appropriate for deciding the accused's fate), definition of the act (e.g., "it was self-defense, not premeditated murder"), or quality of the act (e.g., "it was premeditated murder, but special circumstances made it justified or at least outweighed its outcomes") (1982, p. 257). Others express similar opinions on the mutual exclusivity of fact arguments and those grounded in definition, jurisdiction, or quality (e.g., Huxman & Bruce, 1995, p. 60). We will argue that Clinton's apologia was sequenced progressively and succeeded because of, rather than in spite of, its exercising multiple stases simultaneously. Further, the sequence in which stases were emphasized at different moments in the scandal mattered.
Background on the Unfolding Kategoria
President Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky precipitated a combined political and legal scandal through 1998 and 1999 that included threats of impeachment and/or censure as well as civil contempt and criminal charges. Initial allegations of obstruction and perjury stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in 1994 by Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee during Clinton's gubernatorial term. Though the harassment allegedly occurred while Clinton was governor, Jones filed her case during the second year of Clinton's first presidential term. During discovery in December, 1997, Jones's lawyers subpoenaed a 24-year-old former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. In a January 17, 1998 deposition for the Jones case, Clinton denied having had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky ("Starr Report," 1998). However, five days earlier, Linda Tripp, a Lewinsky confidante, had informed Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr that Clinton had had an affair with Lewinsky and that he had encouraged the intern to lie about their relationship in the Jones case (Isikoff & Thomas, 1998a). Starr, already investigating the President on numerous unrelated allegations, equipped Tripp with a listening wire. Tripp surreptitiously recorded Lewinsky discussing her relationship with Clinton and suggesting that presidential friend and informal advisor Vernon Jordan had encouraged her to lie about it (Isikoff & Thomas, 1998a). Tripp also produced for Starr a list of suggested "talking points" that Lewinsky had given Tripp in case she was called to testify in Jones v. Clinton (Isikoff & Thomas, 1998a). Based on the Tripp evidence, the Justice Department allowed Starr to expand his inquiry into the Lewinsky matter (Isikoff & Thomas, 1998a). The media broke the story, and national frenzy ensued.
After a few days of "non-denial denials," Clinton created a now-famous television moment. He stood between his wife and Vice President Al Gore, pointed his finger at the camera, and declared resolutely: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" (Fineman, 1998). With Lewinsky refusing to cooperate with Starr's new probe, the investigation moved slowly for some months. The President made little public comment regarding the scandal during the next six months. Then, late in July, 1998, Lewinsky agreed to testify before Starr's grand jury in exchange for full immunity from prosecution (Isikoff & Thomas, 1998b). The former intern testified to numerous incidents of non-intercourse sexual contact with Clinton between November, 1995, and March, 1997 ("Starr Report," 1998). Stunningly foreclosing a host of rhetorical options for Clinton, Lewinsky produced a blue dress that tests established bore the President's DNA (Thomas, 1998). Clinton's initial responses of denial and righteous silence foundered.
Unaware of the substance of Lewinsky's secret testimony, the President testified before the grand jury on August 17, 1998. He admitted to "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky, but maintained that the contact did not qualify as "sexual relations" as he understood the term or as the term had been defined during his deposition in the Jones case ("Starr Report," 1998). Clinton refused to discuss specific details of his contact with Lewinsky, but disagreed with portions of her descriptions of their activities ("Starr Report," 1998). Additional discrepancies between Clinton's testimony and that of other witnesses included: 1) the amount of time that Clinton and Lewinsky had spent alone together; 2) the number of gifts that they had exchanged; and 3) the alleged concealment of gifts that the President had given Lewinsky and that were subpoenaed in the Jones case ("Starr Report," 1998). The Independent Counsel's office suggested it had evidence that Clinton had tried to help Lewinsky secure a job in New York and had tried to influence the testimony of his...
|
