Molly Ivins October 15

AUSTIN — Here's a theory. I have been puzzling over why so many people insist on not just disagreeing with President Clinton but actively hating him. As you know, political discussions about Clinton seldom run along the lines of, "Boy, is he ever wrong about the minimum wage."

Instead, there is a seething fury in the insistence that Clinton is really evil. It is not uncommon to come across fellow citizens who believe that Clinton is a murderer, a drug dealer, a drug addict and an all-round moral sewer. Nothing infuriates them more than the suggestion that Clinton just might be a fairly decent politician who gets up every day and does the best he can. Unlike many we can name, he hasn't gotten rich in politics. Sure, as far as moral character goes, he's no Jimmy Carter. But, then, neither was Ronald Reagan.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich used to attack Clinton for representing "the '60s," which apparently stood in his mind for free love, drugs, turning on, tuning in and dropping out. Not exactly Clinton's career profile.

Of Clinton's many political sins, it's hard to think of any that Bob Dole hasn't also committed — and for about 30 years longer. Dole had a classic anything-to-win campaign in 1974, the one where he beat up on his doctor-opponent. And Dole has certainly tacked and trimmed over the years. Right now, the old deficit hawk is running on a 15 percent tax cut. Every other day, he attacks Clinton for being "liberal, liberal, liberal," while in between, he attacks him for having no political principles whatever.

Yet, few of us have a problem getting our minds around the idea that Dole, on the whole, is not a bad fellow. His record is meaner than Clinton's, he has played the political hatchet man often enough to have it stick to him, and his dark sense of humor (which I like) sometimes gets him into trouble. No one would claim that Dole is a sunny soul. But he is generally considered a decent enough fellow. Despite his wife's questionable business dealings and more questionable campaign contributions than anyone can remember, his party has no hesitation about running him as a paragon of character and reliability, a man of his word and so forth.

But Clinton has been on the receiving end of a relentless, four-year assault on his character. The sheer improbability of watching this assault mounted by Gingrich and Sen. Al D'Amato does not seem to have blunted it. In Gene Lyon's book "Fools for Scandal," an excellent exegesis of Whitewater, you will find a disheartening portrait of the media's role in all this.

Sometimes class, the issue that dare not speak its name in American politics, is behind some of the nasty, ugly aspects of our politics.

Richard Nixon was a master at exploiting class resentments. But Clinton has a legitimate enough claim to having been a pore boy — his stepdaddy was an alcoholic, he had to work his way through school and all that. Of course, he is a politician to-the-bone, and politicians are now among our most despised groups. Then again, so is Dole.

No, this something else: the stench of self-righteousness seeping up through the cracks and calling itself morality. How's this for a dandy generalization: Lovers are on the left, and haters are on the right. And, in order to hate, in order to do wrong to someone else, you have to dehumanize that person — you have to exaggerate his faults and failings to justify your own behavior. How's that for cheap psychology on a weekday?

CROW EATEN HERE: Ah, she said sapiently, I notice that I have managed to mucho annoy about a zillion of my fellow Irish Americans, not to mention a nifty assortment of other Roman Catholics. The subject in question is my recent screed on the subject of Catholic schools. My, we are a testy lot, aren't we?

As many of you correctly deduced, yes, it has been a number of years (about 30) since I was in a Catholic school. I hold that and my own unforgivable stupidity responsible for my having written that Catholic schools are "largely staffed by nuns and priests." It was not just wrong and dumb but very obviously wrong and dumb, and I am sorry.

On the other hand, I did acknowledge the lay teachers in Catholic schools, and I am afraid the now small percentage of nuns teaching in Catholic schools rather reinforces my point about the disappearance of nuns. That much has changed during the last 30 years was more or less my point. I was not gloating — only noting the change.

I'm not quite clear why the notation that many of the nuns come from the "Olde Sod" upset some readers. They do. Having been reliably informed by own father that I am a direct descendant of the kings of Ireland (Are we ready to lighten up here, team? Do we all remember this ancient jape?), I see no shame in our point of origin. Couldn't we all go out and see the new movie about Michael Collins and just get mad at the English instead?

To reiterate some obvious points: Whatever it costs to send your kids to Catholic school is on top of what you pay in taxes for the public schools; I still think it would be a better idea to make the public schools work instead. I received an amazing array of numbers on how much less the Catholic schools pay lay teachers than the public schools (my own assertion was a modest two-thirds, and I'm sticking with it, although I'm willing to grant that it's higher in some areas). I'm warning you again: It ain't gonna last.

I'm sorry if I sound like a militant feminist, but a system built on underpaying women is built on sand. And I still say that the numbers are on my side — they come directly from the church itself.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.