ONE thing I'll never forgive Bill Clinton for is "lowering the bar" for the use of cliches by commentators. Bill’s critics off
track (and field)Not just commentators, actually. Anyone dragged into a television studio to comment about the Clinton mess somehow manages to complain about the "lowering" or "raising" of "the bar." They should be beat with it.
The argument usually goes like this: Subjecting the president to impeachment for lying about consensual sex "lowers the bar" for all future presidents. That means, I guess, that it sets the standard lower than it should be for removing a president. Some think the standard should be "high treason."
But that's problematic also, since most of us don't know the different variations of treason. What is low treason? Giving the Russians secret recipes from the Pentagon cafeteria? The term "high treason" seems to call for an act of Hollywood daring-do, like fighting your way, Three Musketteers-style, out of the White House with a dueling sword in one hand hand and a copy of nuclear missile silo launch codes in the other. (Medium treason, I suppose, would be allowing the Chinese ambassador access to your America Online account.)
Anyway, there has been much raising and lowering of bars since the Clinton scandal broke and it must stop.
FOR one thing, it is not a good cliche because its meaning is unclear. Most congressional reprehensibles, er, representatives, don't know if impeaching a president for lying about sex is raising or lowering the bar. In a sense, when you impeach someone for just being a big dummy and not for say, "fair-to-middlin' treason," you are raising the bar, not lowering it, because you are expecting more from this guy than was expected of other presidents. You could say, but shouldn't, that the moral behavior bar has been raised for Clinton because that frisky sex puppy John Kennedy was never given a chance to lie about his libidinous liberties.
And this confusion over raising or lowering the bar occurs even if we assume that the phrase's foundation, the cliche substratum, relates to track and field events such as the high jump or pole vault. In these events, participants are expected to launch their bodies OVER a bar. Causing someone to attempt to fling himself over a bar that has been raised willy-nilly, haphazardly or arbitrarily is unfair and dangerous, but, ultimately, fun to watch.
But what if we are talking about doing the limbo? If you say that impeaching the president for falling for a big-haired bimbo is "lowering the bar" in the limbo sense, then you are saying, well, I'm not sure what you are saying, but you get the idea. It's confusing. Especially if you start off by saying that the president's future is in "bimbo limbo."
The only good thing about commentators "raising the bar" is that it keeps them from "leveling the playing field."
Washington politicians and commentators apparently all shop at Beltway Sports Cliche Warehouse. They are forever raising bars, leveling playing fields, calling "time outs" and "blowing whistles." Who wants a level playing field? I want the playing field to be set at a 45-degree angle and I want to be running downhill with a wind at my back, by god.
So why is "going downhill" considered a bad thing? You would think that if your career were racing downhill, that would be great. You never hear the compliment, "Hey, I hear your career is going uphill! Fabulous!"
I think Clinton needs to get off the playing field, level or otherwise, climb out of the high jump pit or limbo line and hit the showers. And while he's at it, he could come clean.
Charles Memminger, winner of
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
awards in 1994 and 1992, writes "Honolulu Lite"
Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Write to him at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, 96802
or send E-mail to charley@nomayo.com or
71224.113@compuserve.com.
The Honolulu Lite online archive is at:
https://archives.starbulletin.com/lite