and varied (facile) talents of our first babyboomernpresident—are now, when observednin an ex-president {ex: Has therenever been a more powerful prefix?), not ansource of fascination but a source of chagrin.nThe people who believed that BillnClinton made the presidency interestingnare finally confronting their 180-degreenmistake: To the extent Bill Clinton wasninteresting, it was the presidency thatnmade him so.nAs for Hillar)’ Clinton, her problem, innan immediate sense, is bigger than.hernhusband’s, and more ironic. After nearlyneight years of hearing “Who electednher?” ever}’ time she tried some inappropriatenpower grab, Mrs. Clinton came upnwith an answer: She would legitimizenherself and her poiihcal views by runningnfor office. By all appearances, she was anhardworking candidate, and she was rewardednwith a decisive victor)’.nSo Mrs. Clinton’s legitimizahon as anpolitician has liberated her, right? Well,nno, as it turns out, not really. For the firstntime in her very political life, HillarynClinton now has a fixed, defined identity.nShe is an elected official, a professionalnpolitician, an identit}’ that carries manynmore constraints than freedoms. Nonlonger can Mrs. Clinton slide with herncustomary expediency into the role ofnFirst Lady, or Bill’s Wife, or Just A Mom,nor Brilliant Law^’cr, or Cenerally SuperiornHuman Being. She can no longernevade accountabilit}’ by choosing at willnamong the many titles at her disposal.nShe has only one title now: United Statesnsenator. And as such, she appears, at leastnin these early months, miserable: confined,nstifled, angry. (And what else isnnew?)nHillary is not alone in her unhappiness.nWhile Bill Clinton’s supportersnplaced themselves, through Clinton, uponna boomer pedestal, Hillar”s loyalists,nalways more cult-like and worshipful, elevatednMrs. Clinton herself to iconic status.nThus, the revelation that she joinedn(perhaps even led) her husband in theirnvulgar exit from their White House leftnher followers to wrestle with their ownnquestions. Does an icon go trolling fornsoup plates? Does a saint pocket the silverware?nDoes a goddess walk off withnthe rugs?nWliile these issues can get complicated,none thing remains simple—and it formsnthe crux of the problem for both Mrs.nClinton and the Church of Hillar’: A U.S.nsenator had better not pocket or walk offnwith anydiing. One wonders if, when shendecided to run for office, Hillary Clintonnrealized that victory would subject hernto the same standards of behavior as,nsay, Jesse Helms. One wonders furthernwhether her most fervent supporters realizednthat victor)’ would end her reign asnfree-floating high priestess, reducing hernto the size of, well, Jesse Helms.nPain, pain, everywhere you turn. Hownto ease all this suffering? Let us start by revisitingnRichard Cohen’s brief sentence:n”You may look bad. Bill, but we look justnplain stupid.” If the rule in political corruptionnis to follow the money, the rule innintelleetiial and moral corruption is to followntile language. The nugget of discoverynin Cohen’s sentence rests in hisnchoice of verb: Bill looks bad; we look stupid.nThe meaning of “look” in tiiis eontext:nto give the appearance of WhatnRichard Cohen is saying, then, is that afternall that has gone before. Bill Clintonnmerely gives the appearance of badness.nAnd Cohen? After misjudging tiie meaningnof all that has gone before, he merelyngives the appearance of stupidit)’.nRichard Cohen’s choice of ec|uivocalnlanguage reveals his equivocal conclusionnabout both Bill Clinton and himself,nand reveals, too, why he (and others likenhim) can’t find peace: He cannot admitnthe raw truth. Bill Clinton doesn’t looknbad; he is bad. Likewise, when it comesnto Clinton, Richard Cohen doesn’t looknstupid; he is stupid. That’s the fact. Jack;nthat’s the trutii. And it shall set you free.nJanet Scott Barlow, who writes fromnCincinnati, Ohio, is the author of ThenNonpatriotic President: A Survey of thenClinton Years (Chronicles Press).nRELIGIONnThe NewnAnti-C ivilizationnby Anthony HarrigannVaclav Havel has said that we are undergoingn”[he brutal destruction ofna cultural landscape that has taken centuriesnto develop”; within this decayingnglobal civilization “is in essence the firstnatheistic civilization in the history ofnmankind.” This use of the word “civilization”nis a contradiction in terms, sincennnthe new moral and intellectual world ordernis the very opposite of what civilizationnhas always meant.nHavel’s basic case is that atheism isnmaking the long march through Westernninstitutions, thereby profoundly changingnthe tone and behavior of global societ)’.nBut that does not mean that Christianitynis dead — or waning—as a vitalnforce in human life. I’here are as manynas two billion Christians worldwide.nSpiritual leaders such as Pope John PaulnII continue to receive the admiration andnrespect of believers. And there have beennwondrous events that have brought joy tonthe hearts of the faithful, events thatncould not have been anticipated even 15nyears ago—notably, the death of atheisticnSoviet communism and the return ofnmillions of Russians to the faith.nThe people of Eastern Europe providentiie most inspiring example for all believersnacross the globe, for they kept Christianitynalive in their hearts despite 75nyears of persecution under militant, atheisticncommunism. But in many othernparts of the world —notably America andnEurope —the powers of darkness havengained an unprecedented advantage overnChristendom, forcing changes in intellectualnlife and social conditions thatnstrike at the heart of the Christian message.nThe powers of unbelief have comento dominate the great universities and thenengines of opinion.nAt the end of the second millennium.nChristians are besieged and threatenednlike the early Christians of Rome andnelsewhere in the ancient world. We maynnot have to worship in catacombs; inncountiess ways, however. Christians arenforced to live an underground existence,nsince the ruling elites view faith as —atnbest—irrelevant.nOur vulnerability lies in our technicalnview of life. In the West, we look for leadersnwho are technicians in national andninternational affairs, dismissing the ancientnview that real leadership is to benfound in the human character. Fornmany Westerners, moral distinctions arensecondary to expertise and effectivenessnat handling social problems.nTime and again, we hear people saynthat they like a public figure’s policies,neven though they disapprove of his behaviornas a person — and usually, theynend up supporting the person whose policiesnthey find worthwhile. This is a farncry from the attitudes held by citizensnwhen religion occupied a commandingnplace in American life. Back then, Amer-nJUNE 2001/43n