LETTERS: ABSOLUTE MORALS AND SUPREME LAW

To the editor:

Could it be that in the political landscape of America that the Libertarians are winning? In the debate over the future of President Clinton, the White House is reportedly upset by the lack of enthusiastic support from the American people. Conservatives are bewildered at the lack of outcry for his removal when even the president's most ardent supporters don't deny his guilt. Most Americans seem to have the Libertarian view: I don't care what happens in Washington or government. Just get out of my life an leave me alone to do my own thing.

Before we take the Libertarian view or try to excuse our president's actions, there may be some things to consider. In our age of enormous confusion, we need to retrace our steps, bringing to light some of those things that make us a great nation and set us above so many others. Our ancestors realized something that we have tried to erase: The basic nature of man is not to do good but to do evil. Therefore, there must be laws that govern the actions of man. Fundamental to all good government is to reward the good and punish those who do wrong by a code of laws. The Libertarian view that man is basically good and, left to himself, will naturally do what is right has been proven historically wrong.

Another error of our society is the pervasive acceptance of moral relativism, the belief that all matters of right and wrong -- and, apparently, the meaning of words -- are of personal definition. President Clinton's actions and his justifications for his actions are the pinnacle of moral relativism. Is this really what we want our children to believe? Yet we as a nation seem bent on teaching this view to our children. If this is the direction, then let us rid our libraries of dictionaries, for each of us must write our own definitions. If right and wrong and the meaning of words are established by each individual, how can we properly interpret the meaning of law? How shall we ultimately have law and order in this land? More importantly, what right would the law have to dictate any code of conduct? If this is our choice, then continue on as we are now going.

If this is not our desire, then let us return to the teaching of moral absolutes and demand that our leaders adhere to them and set an example for our nation.

Equally important is the supremacy of the law. Shall we undo 700 years of the law for one man? Shall we, because of the charm of our president, prosperity of the time and partisanship erase 700 years of historical advancement and revert to Rex Lex, the king is above the law? We cannot have it both ways. Either all men are equal under the law and responsible for their actions in a uniform compliance with those laws, or the president is above the law. Our president must face the same consequences as all other men who have broken the same laws. If we choose to excuse him, then let us expunge the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. Let us choose the harder road for the sake of our children and for the sake of this republic that we all hold so dear.

I can well sympathize with the supporters of President Clinton who don't want to see their leader removed from office or their party image tarnished. I remember all so well how painful it was for me when President Nixon was in the depths of Watergate. I thought at the time that Nixon hadn't done all that much wrong and they were making a big deal out of nothing. Only in time could I reflect and accept the truth. An honest, open mind set upon the good of the country will in time come to the same conclusions about President Clinton.

For our nation to stand, words must have uniform meaning, morals must be absolute and the law must be supreme in our great idea of the equality of all men.

RAY ROWLAND

Dexter