Recently, I learned that Kenneth Starr will be the next President of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Virtually everyone over the age of 30 will remember him as the independent prosecutor whose investigation led to the impeachment of U.S. President Bill Clinton in December 1998. This past week, Starr's appointment led to a conversation started on Facebook among the friends of Stan Risener -- Stan is a guy who is always starting a wide range of interesting topics.

Immediately, Stan's friends lined up on both sides with comments--pro-Starr and anti-Starr. I weighed in on the latter side but eventually posed the question as to whether MORALITY and COMPETENCE go hand in hand, or can one be very competent but then go home and abuse family members, for example. That kept the ball rolling a couple more days, and I think we're all tired of the subject now.

Well, right now I'm on a retreat of sorts that is helping me adjust both my mental and physical conditions. A writer-historian friend, Cathie Reilly, has encouraged me to pick up on my stalled writing projects and get productive again. I'm accepting the challenge.

To get myself going, I spent last night on my laptop computer searching through and separating out any incomplete writing projects. Well, I found my folder of "Letters to the Editor Never Sent." In it was a February 1998 letter I had written that expressed my view at the time the Clinton sex scandal came to light. Now 12 years later, the letter is being published here on my Blog for anyone who is interested.

Recognize that, in 1998 when I wrote the piece below, I was a Democrat having switched from the Republican Party in the mid-1980s. Now, I'm a devout Independent having decided around 2003 or 2004 that neither party was of any value. Well, here it is.

Why I Approve of President William Clinton
February 1, 1998
By Ken Brown, Springfield, MO

Like many Americans, I’ve endured the emotional roller coaster of the presidential sex scandal of the past few weeks. Like most I was titillated sometimes and bewildered most of the time as the media put out a barrage of facts that . I groped (oops, I grasped) for some solitude and a chance to think through some of what was happening in our society.

I found that solitude at a rural monastery in the Ozarks hills. As part of its Christian mission, the Assumption Abbey near Ava, MO, opens its doors to anyone looking for a chance to step back and reflect on life. In a Christ-like manner, the monks asked nothing of its guests other than to be present for meals lest food be wasted, and to honor the solemnity of their institution. Under their system, the only chance for conversation is with other guests during meals. On one of these occasions, I fell into a discussion with two other guests, who like myself turned out to be educators, about an assortment of interesting topics. Inevitably, the conversation disintegrated to the more earthy presidential sex scandal. Surprisingly, we soon realized that all agreed on one aspect of the matter: the premise that presidential effectiveness and leadership is somehow correlated with marital fidelity simply is NOT supported by historical perceptions of who did and who didn’t, going all the way back to, yes, our founding fathers.

None of us around the table, as we finished our meager meal of homemade bread and potato soup prepared by the Brothers, doubted President Clinton’s capability for infidelity. Just as the Monks asked nothing about our private lives before inviting us into their midst, we just didn’t believe the President’s private life is our affair, and we were mystified about Kenneth Starr’s role in the matter (a view shared by Molly Ivins and Tom Teepen in their Springfield News-Leader editorials of Jan. 27 and Jan. 28, 1998 respectively). The contention that our presidents should somehow have less rights than you and me didn’t seem right.

Our defense of Clinton was NOT for his benefit but for the position he will leave for the next politician to follow The New Zealander at our table suggested the time might be right for the United States to have a prime minister tied to the majority party rather than the current irrationality of a President inherently at odds with a opposing party. He’s correct if we insist on a President whose personal profile could only be fulfilled by Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary. This latter thought, however, gives cause to reflect on Senator John Ashcroft, whose assertion of marital fidelity make him better qualified than others for the next presidency. People who have known John personally, including me, say that is a plausible assertion for him to make. That fact should cause John to get Janet Ashcroft’s vote but is otherwise none of our business.

More important to the voting public is the need to know what backrooms, not bedrooms, you went through on your way to the White House. And I suspect that the political backrooms test every candidate’s moral and ethical fiber. Yet, this is an opportunity for Senator Ashcroft to get national attention.

And before this letter goes to print, President Clinton could well be forced out of office on such grounds. Around the table at the Monks’ retreat all of use gathered concurred that the European model which separates the public and private lives of politicians, would serve us better.

As I drove out of the hills from the retreat on this 1998 super-bowl Sunday afternoon, I tuned in on a national conservative talk show in which the host had already decided that Clinton was history, and no doubt to keep his ratings alive was beginning to roast Vice President Gore as being even worse: reason, “he’s an environmental nut.” Lest we ever forget her immortal words of wisdom, Roseanne Rosannadanna said it best: “It’s always something.”