By Diane Levero

William Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan and editor of the bestselling Book of Virtues, says in his introduction to The Death of Outrage that he has not always been critical of President Clinton.

He once admired Clinton for his work as governor on education reform, and thought him to be 'remarkably talented and affable,' intelligent and politically able.

In this short, succinct book, however, Mr. Bennett condemns the 'Abortion President' and his deeds without reservation. He charges that Mr. Clinton, throughout the Lewinsky scandal, has corrupted the office of president and our nation, has shamelessly eroded our national character and morality, and has seriously undermined the rule of law.

The Lewinsky affair is not an aberration, he emphasizes, but only the most explosive incident in an administration awash in corruption.

Mr. Bennett knows he fighting an uphill battle to convince the bewildered or wavering that such is the case. Clinton's paid flaks in the White House and his toadies in the mainstream media have waged a relentless and successful campaign to persuade the majority of Americans that the president deserves their support and approval.

Bennett therefore carefully considers the arguments put forth in defense of Clinton and then rebuts them one by one. These arguments have clustered around six main topics: sex, character, politics, Ken Starr, law and judgment.

Sex

One of the most frequently heard defenses of the president is that this case is 'only about sex.'

The argument is, a president's private sexual behavior is none of the people's business. (The president himself, in his televised non-apology to the nation on the evening after his grand jury testimony, angrily told us to our faces that it was 'nobody's business' except his and his family's.)

Clinton's sexual misconduct--even if it involves a married president and a young intern--is victimless and not important or relevant, say his defenders. Many good past presidents strayed sexually. Privacy and civilized culture demand that we lie about sex; Europeans understand that. We should be less uptight and more sophisticated, like the Europeans.

Bennett points out, first, that the object of the Starr investigation is not Clinton's sexual activity, but the alleged criminal wrongdoing--perjury, obstruction of justice, and job offers for silence--that occurred as a result.

As for our nation's moral streak, he says, it is precisely this moral streak that is what's best about us, and we should neither be ashamed of it nor abandon it.

Further, sexual behavior is not unimportant or without consequences; adultery is a betrayal of a very high order, with often far-flung repercussions. Clinton's sexual behavior is symptomatic of a man who makes no attempt to control his appetites, but pursues them recklessly and with a frightening lack of judgment.

Character

This argument says, the economy is what matters, and the economy is fine. Presidential character and private conduct don't matter--at least not that much.

While Bennett agrees that the economy is important, he contends that '[a] president whose character manifests itself in patterns of reckless personal conduct, deceit, abuse of power, and contempt for the rule of law cannot be a good president.'

A president depends on a reservoir of trust and goodwill based on his character; when the people cannot trust him or his word, he cannot lead.

Politics

This attack on Bill Clinton's behavior is nothing more than partisan politics, goes this argument. As Hillary Clinton so famously put it: '[T]his vast right-wing conspiracy . . . has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.'

Bennett makes short work of Hillary's amazing charge, with a list of people who would have to be considered right-wing conspirators that includes liberal reporters and editors, ex-ladyfriends and victims, Arkansas state troopers, Chinese government officials, and so forth.

A corollary of this argument is that because Clinton's political agenda is worthy, his supporters should back him, despite his character flaws; i.e., the end justifies the means.

The feminists buy into this viewpoint, excusing his behavior because he supports their agenda, especially abortion on demand.

But justifying the means by the end is a dangerous precept, says Bennett. Once you leave principles behind, you become a nation of men and not of laws, and open yourself to the possibility of tyranny.

Ken Starr

This defense alleges that: (1) the independent counsel law is bad and is damaging our political culture; and (2) Judge Starr is a partisan, right-wing prosecutor bent on bringing down Clinton using any means necessary.

Mr. Bennett agrees that the independent counsel law is a bad one, because it undercuts the separation of powers, and creates an independent counsel who is virtually accountable to no one.

The Reagan administration argued that the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, however, upheld its constitutionality. After Congress had let it lapse, in 1994 Clinton signed a bill restoring it.

Bennett shows that Starr's career has been one of sobriety, judiciousness, and personal and professional integrity. Starr is neither 'sex-obsessed' nor a 'religious fanatic,' as his accusers maintain. He is properly fulfilling his legal obligation as independent counsel to pursue credible charges of criminal conduct, as authorized by Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno.

Law

The core of this defense is that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence; we should wait until everything is settled in a court of law.

The effectiveness of this argument has been largely overcome by the weight of events that have occurred since the publication of Mr. Bennett's book: the release to the public of Starr's report to Congress and the videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony, as well as his various admissions of an 'inappropriate' relationship with Miss Lewinsky.

Judgment

Even if Clinton had an adulterous relationship with Miss Lewinsky and lied under oath about it, his defenders argue, we should be tolerant, forgiving of human frailty, and less judgmental.

The strength for this argument lies in the current popular belief that one of the worst sins possible is 'judgmentalism.' In a pluralistic society, we are told, we must be tolerant and forgiving.

But forgiveness and tolerance are becoming synonymous with lax standards and indifference, says Bennett. If Americans had not been 'judgmental,' they never would have abolished slavery, outlawed child labor, or ended racial segregation.

Moral judgments need to be made so that we may hold ourselves to standards that allow us to live better, more noble lives.

Mr. Bennett warns that the widespread lack of outrage against the president's misconduct tells us something very disturbing about our condition.

We as a nation have defined personal morality down; we have radically lowered the standards of what we expect from our president.

Worse yet, in accepting, and thus tacitly approving, his actions, we have become complicit in them. We have not only given license to Mr. Clinton's corruption, we have corrupted ourselves.

Concludes Bennett: '[T]here is an appropriate moment for anger at the proper things, and with the proper person. In our time, the thing is corruption, and the person is the president.'