GUEST SHOT

A Brief Essay

by William Sheldon

Don't Blame Me: I Voted for Falstaff

THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO I BEGAN struggling with Will Shakespeare. Now I'm struggling with Bill Clinton's admission that he had an "inappropriate sexual relationship" with an employee and that he lied to the country about it out of embarrassment and a desire to protect his family. There's a connection, here, which I'll get to in a minute.

First, the present: $43 million of taxpayer money squandered by an out-of-control special prosecutor and an unknown sum of private funds spent on attorneys by friends and family of the President defending themselves from leaks and innuendo. The end result is pathetic. The "criminal wrongdoing" uncovered in the series of prosecutions launched to date is miniscule, but an otherwise impressive world leader has been brought to the point of publicly admitting adultery.

Bill Clinton is the closest to a real economist America has had in the White House in decades. He is also pretty savvy in certain aspects of the international scene. He had a shot at being remembered as a great president, despite so much controversy, because so many things worked well for America, due at least in part to his policies. He will, however, be remembered as the president who got a blow job in the Oval Office and lied about it.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, is remembered by many as one of the greatest presidents of the century, despite the fact that his economic policy was scandalously stupid and his foreign policy was a dangerous combination of covert gangsterism and bullying. Some may recall that he was referred to as "The Teflon President" because nothing stuck to him -- no scandals, no sex, no lies and, unlike Richard Nixon, no audiotape. He is remembered fondly not because he was squeaky clean -- it still amazes me that he escaped censure in the Iran-Contra affair -- but because of what many see as courageous adherence to his political agenda, come hell or high water.

Which brings us back to Shakespeare. After years of muddled readings and amateur scholarship in the field, I've come to the conclusion that there are two key concepts in Shakespeare, two morals. The first, illuminated in the comedies, is this: "Don't take yourself so seriously." The second, which drives the tragedies, is this: "Any character defect that grows unchecked will destroy all that is noble in a person, a family, a society."

Othello, for example, was a noble leader of soldiers, a courageous and intelligent strategist. He was felled by jealousy and pride. His character defects grew unchecked and consumed everything else he had to offer. His downfall was triggered by Iago, whose character defects of greed, envy and dishonesty consumed whatever valuable traits he must have had to have risen to a trusted position before Act I.

In Romeo and Juliet, two families are destroyed by pride. In King Lear, a family and a nation are engulfed in war as a result of Lear's pride and sloth. Lear wanted to renounce the responsibilities of his office and retire, so to speak, at the expense of his daughters and nation. He chose poorly and refused to engage in the moment's reflection that might have saved his family and country.

Another instructive example is Hal's distancing himself from Falstaff in the Henry plays. Drunkenness, sloth, boastfulness, gluttony, dishonesty, lust -- all the traits that made Falstaff such a loveable character and that the young Hal enjoyed so thoroughly-- are traits that a king cannot display if he wants to be successful in the king business.

Later, when Hal is about to become king, he says to Falstaff "I know thee not, old man."

When I first read that scene, Hal's rejection of Falstaff offended me. I thought it was the remark of a prideful, hypocritical boy ascending to power and shunning the less fortunate but engaging friends of his youth. The years have changed my interpretation.

Which brings us to two truths about ourselves. The first is that we find it difficult to see our leaders as human. We want them to be without character flaws, not because we rely on their perfection, but because we rely on their judgment. If they are dishonest in small things, why should we trust them in large matters?

The second, contradictory but self-evident truth is that we love to watch the mighty fall. About which, enough said.

I offer this grumpy little piece of moralistic bombast because I believe it. What's more, I believe that if our leaders were fed Shakespeare as children, and made to think about what qualities destroyed each tragic hero, that those leaders might truly lead.

Bill Sheldon is a lawyer, an avid reader and a writer. He makes his home in Flagstaff, Arizona.

The Guest Shot Archive:

John Bancroft on Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang

Jack Moore on Saul Bellow's The Actual

Jack Moore on Keith Windschuttle's The Killing of History

Bill Sheldon on Bill Gates' The Road Ahead

A Not Entirely Disinterested Service of
Bancroft & Associates: Digital Publishers