Where's the outrage?

Where's the outrage?" Bob Dole asked during the plaintive finale to his hapless campaign. Then, in another of those peculiar ironies from which the Almighty seems to construct his schedule among us humans, the day after the election brought a new outrage to the media's attention--something they could all agree was a really terrible matter. Some low-level (in more than one way) Army officers in Maryland had broken trust and taken sexual advantage of women under their charge.

The coverage has been substantial. Yet none of the major media have so much as whispered the all-too-obvious connection between the offenses being described and the almost identical allegations still resting against the commander-in-chief of that same U.S. Army. The natural question is: "Is there a corporate culture at work that encourages this sort of behavior? Do the people at the top do things that prompt those farther down the scale to think they might get away with this?" But of course.

It took only a few hours for the men being charged in these cases to be relieved of their duties. Their Top Man, meanwhile, continues to stonewall, and thereby delay and deny justice, in a case outlined in detail by Stuart Taylor in the American Lawyer as all-but-conclusive against the president. An attorney friend of mine says cases like this typically take two or three days to try in court. So why doesn't Mr. Clinton simply take that little bit of time, clear his name, and set the example from the top that the military establishment deserves?

But until the president asks for such an early resolution of the charges of Paula Jones, why do the big media continue to give him a free ride?

If you were like me over the last few years and found yourself a skeptic of such constant harping on the so-called "gender gap" in American politics, maybe it's time for both of us to concede that the gap is real. When there's a 16-point margin (women overall voted for Mr. Clinton by 54-38 percent, while men voted for Mr. Dole by 44-43 percent), the statistics are pretty compelling. So if the gap is real, what's the explanation? I suggest looking two places--and both are related to male failure.

Married women actually split very evenly in their votes between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole. Unmarried women account for the lopsided gap. But who are these unmarried women? Singles who have never married? Elderly widows? Or single moms who are understandably worried about who's going to care for them? It doesn't take a very sophisticated political analyst to figure out why that last category--all by itself--would generate a significant gap. Maybe our friends at the Family Research Council in Washington can come up with actual numbers of how many voters were searching for a Big Daddy in Washington to do for them what the first daddy in their households failed to do.

That suggests another explanation worth exploring.There's a remarkable--and sometimes very wonderful--tendency among women who have been betrayed by a male in their lives. Instead of anger toward that failed male, such women express support. Is it a mothering instinct? Is it a compensatory factor God has built in for male weakness? I'm not sure. But I've seen it often enough among battered women, wives of alcoholics, and wives of unfaithful husbands to know it's real. Many women have a tendency to stand inexplicably by flawed men. Is that part of what happened in the 1996 presidential election?

So after two chops at Mr. Clinton, let's inflict one on ourselves. Even if the embarrassing reports about racial slurs and condescending ethnic jokes in the highest offices of the Texaco corporation were overstated, they are still a reminder that such conversation happens too much even in Christian circles. If you've never been standing there when a friend, a relative, or a fellow church member (I hope it was never you!) good-naturedly started telling an ethnic joke, double check your address label; it may have a celestial zip code.

But what do you do? It's socially easier to walk quietly away than it is to be known as prissy. But it's the walking away that almost always leads to still another joke, with the person in the next office naturally wanting to top the one that was already told. Things move to a more daring--and usually more hurtful--level.

Christians, when they hear such conversation, need of all people to be those who respond straightforwardly: "Maybe we'd better put that one on the shelf--or maybe even in the trash. OK?"

Your co-worker, friend, or fellow church member probably isn't carrying a secret tape recorder like the fellow at Texaco was. But our Creator does, and he will hold us accountable for every foolish word.