Feb. 28, 1997: The Day Joe Lieberman Lost The Presidency?,Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Our natural inclinations would have us believe that individual actions, whether errors in judgment or extravagant demonstrations of bravery, generally do not affect the course of human history.

After all, we cannot point to one individual's act of heroism that accounts for the outcome of World War II. And even without Sergeant York, whom history regards as an incredibly brave soldier, the Allies still would have won World War I.

One cannot imagine what a single individual could have done to prevent the Holy Roman Empire from collapsing when it did; and despite the bravery of many Confederate soldiers they could not change the outcome of the U.S. Civil War: the South had to lose.

Superficially, at least, it would seem as though history marches on impervious to the private choices individuals make or fail to make.

But yet, when we really think about it, there are those occasions where one person's actions have indeed mapped the course of human history.

The more obvious cases are extreme, criminal or evil. Consider the assassination of President McKinley by Leon Czologosz in 1901. From the (theoretically) simple act of an on-target shot the next three presidencies were all but determined. Theodore Roosevelt became president and pursued policies completely unlike those McKinley would have, which led to the election of President Taft and then to the election, in a political backlash, of the very intellectual President Wilson who led this nation into its first world war.

It is easy to see the domino effect here and it is reasonable to conclude that the history of the United States was changed for decades by one bullet.

That actions as extreme as assassinations and terrorist attacks can impact the fate of a nation is not particularly surprising. Indeed, it is often the case that those who commit such atrocities do so precisely because they want to bring about a substantial change - Yigal Amir's assassination of Prime Minister Rabin is but one of many examples of this.

So individual acts of evil sometimes do change the course of the world.

But personal choices, even when no larger effect is intended, can also change the course of a nation's history.

Case in point: Twelve years ago, on February 28, 1997, President Clinton had one of his intermittent encounters with Monica Lewinsky, though this was one that would prove fateful and that he admitted to regretting almost immediately: "I was sick after it was over and I was pleased at that time that it had been nearly a year since any inappropriate contact had occurred with Ms. Lewinsky," he later said. "I promised myself it wasn't going to happen again."

One might ask what difference Clinton's reprehensible though private conduct made on our national destiny. Certainly his wife and family suffered from his behavior, but people routinely succumb to temptations that adversely affect their families and we do not brand their indiscretions a matter of national import. But sometimes such actions have substantial repercussions. This was one of those times, and it has shaped America's destiny since.

It was that February 28 encounter that would make Lewinsky's navy blue dress a household word, leading to Clinton's impeachment, which in turn forced the Democratic presidential hopeful in 2000, then-Vice President Gore, to distance himself from Clinton, a decision that ultimately deprived Gore's campaign of Clinton's active campaigning in areas of the country where his popularity remained undiminished.

Gore lost every Southern state in the 2000 election, including his own state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas, and President Bush became president in an election so close it was essentially decided by Supreme Court fiat.

The Bush presidency, and the backlash against it, led to the election of our current president, Barack Obama, who stands in near total contrast to Bush in both style and substance. We see that all of this is a just ripple surrounding one fateful indiscretion by Clinton on February 28, 1997.

History could just as easily have come out differently. Had Clinton turned away from his encounter with Lewinsky (as he said he struggled to do), few doubt that Gore would have become president in 2000. These past eight years would have been completely different (maybe better, maybe worse; who really knows?) and the uniqueness of the president elected in 2008 might well have been that he was a Jew, Joe Lieberman - who would have been Gore's vice president for two terms and the obvious Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

The choices our nation has made, and the leadership it presently has in the year 2009, can all be traced back, with quite reasonable clarity, to a single person's decision to succumb to his personal vice twelve years ago almost to the day.

This ought to be a lesson to us all about the moral choices we make. We must never assume that the effects of our actions are limited to ourselves and our private affairs. The choices we make in our personal lives may not impact nations, but rest assured we are not the only ones who pay for the mistakes incubated in our personal frailties.

Rabbi Michael Broyde is a law professor at Emory University and the founding
rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta.

Read Comments (6)

Feb. 28, 1997: The Day Joe Lieberman Lost The Presidency? , Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Broyde's left-wing viewpoint
Date 12:02, 02-27, 09

Once again R. Michael Broyde shows us his left-wing politics. Verily, I do believe the man is incapable of writing anything not affected by his politics. This is most unfortunate, because these myopic viewpoints also spill into his halachic writings. From his article:

"our current president, Barack Obama, who stands in near total contrast to Bush in both style and substance."

Really? So different in substance, you say? And you can tell this after three weeks in office? Of after one term in the Senate where he accomplished exactly nothing? Or because of his monumental accomplishments in the private sector . . .?

"President Bush became president in an election so close it was essentially decided by Supreme Court fiat."

No. It was decided by voters. And since when is a supreme court decision a "fiat?" When R. Broyde calls Brown v. Bd. of Ed. a fiat, which is actually the truth as we know from some of the justices' autobiographies, he'll have some crediblity.

"Had Clinton turned away from his encounter with Lewinsky (as he said he struggled to do), few doubt that Gore would have become president in 2000."

Wrong. Few of your academic buddies, doubt it, maybe. Few also doubted that John Kerry would lose.
As for the substance of his article - Obama won because Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky - is almost laughable. The butterfly effect says even the smallest of factors can cause infinite change, but Broyde thinks he can trace a presidential election among 300 million people to one night, 12 years ago. Unbelievable.

This is a leading light of Orthodoxy?
Date 01:02, 02-27, 09

"Theodore Roosevelt became president and pursued policies completely unlike those McKinley would have, which led to the election of President Taft and then to the election, in a political backlash, of the very intellectual President Wilson who led this nation into its first world war."

Methinks Prof. Broyde needs to learn his history. I don't plan on helping him other than to inform him that he's way, way off.

Lav Davka
Date 08:02, 02-28, 09

But wasn't the choice of Lieberman also a reaction to Clinton, an attempt to use the religiosity of Lieberman to distance himself from the moral murkiness surrounding Clinton?

Interesting Article On The Importance Of Our Deeds
Date 01:03, 03-1, 09

Rabbi Broyde has written an interesting article on the theological subject of the significance of individual deeds. (Whether Joe Lieberman lost the election because of Bill Clinton's conduct, I do not know; nonetheless, from a theological perspective, Rabbi Broyde's thesis is worthy of consideration.) Essentially, the theological truth based on classical Jewish thought pertains to the principle that our conduct is important in the sight of the Lord.

As Maimonides asserts in his credo of Torah principles: "I firmly believe that the Creator knows all the actions and thoughts of human beings, as it is written:
It is He Who forms the hearts of them all and takes note of all their deeds."

This is the gift of free will. How we exercise it does have consequences. May Hashem guide us in our daily
activities to stay on the straight path of Mitzvah performance and peace. Rabbi Chaim Silver

Gore's own fault
Date 09:03, 03-1, 09

Gore was not forced to distance himself from Clinton and his policies - that was his own stupid fault. He quite likely could have won the election by campaigning on Clinton's successful policies.

Rabbi Broyde's Article
Date 11:03, 03-13, 09

It seems to me that some of Rabbi Broyde's critics
really missed the point. (For some reason, much attention was paid to the rabbi's opinion of recent American election
outcomes.)

As to the specifics accounting for those results,
objective observers can differ.

But Broyde's critics must concede that individual actions have played significant roles in history. (The act of one individual assassin started World War 1---at least according to conventional wisdom---that act is frequently viewed as the catalyst which led to a world conflict. There are numerous other examples.)

It seems to me that the tendency to deny
the role of the individual is due to rebellion against
the ethical monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures which preach about personal responsibility toward man and God.

In addition, Rabbi Broyde raises the important subject of Divine Providence which is an essential component of traditional Jewish theology.

This is a subject that warrant much study and discussion as it impacts our daily lives. Rabbi Yoel Cohen