A Parallel Between Stern, Clinton

If you need evidence of the level of moral decay in the United States, you need look no further than recent headlines.

Two names keep popping up - Bill Clinton and Howard Stern.

Clinton because of all the problems that have surfaced in relation to Democratic fund-raising activities, and Stern because of his new hit movie, "Private Parts."

The thread of commonality that binds the two in my mind is not so much what they have done, but how the public perceives what they have done.

For a long time I have assumed there is a silent majority in this country, that the vast majority of Americans still hold to a traditional set of values.

You know, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Honesty. Fidelity. Patriotism. Morality. God and country. That sort of thing.

I am beginning to wonder.

Take Bill Clinton.

No matter what happens in his administration, there is little or no outcry from the public. The silent majority, if it exists, is excruciatingly silent.

Here we have an administration that wined and dined drug dealers, Chinese arms smugglers and Lebanese embezzlers in the White House. The vice president has become a high-level telemarketer. The integrity of the office of the president has been compromised.

But Clinton and his administration throw up their hands, say ooopsy doopsy, and we the people buy into it.

And all over the media, the talking heads and political pundits are saying, "Big deal. The Republicans do it, too."

And we the people seem to buy into it.

The latest polls show Clinton's popularity down a bit. Down to a 56 percent approval rating from 60 percent a couple weeks ago. How in the world could 56 percent of those surveyed approve of the job Clinton is doing?

But then again, Clinton's character flaws were well known long before the last election and it didn't stop us from re-electing him. In fact, most people said they didn't trust him, but voted for him anyway, the polls showed.

Where's that silent majority of level-headed people out there?

And then there's Stern.

Scripps Howard ran a column the other day about Stern and his new movie.

I will share the first paragraph:

"His name, Howard Stern, is a punchline for cranky old columnists whining about how much better life was in the 'Ozzie and Harriet' days."

Hmmm, "cranky old columnist" me.

Stern is first and foremost a shock jock. He denies being a shock jock, but that's what he is. And I have absolutely no problem with that.

Stern has made a lot of money debasing and deriding anything that anyone holds dear. The antithesis of traditional values.

He does a lot of lesbian gags on his show, a lot of genitalia gags. He has prostitutes and porn stars on the show. He is generally obnoxious on the air. Always on the edge of what the Federal Communications Commission deems obscene.

In fact, he gets fined by the FCC every once in a while for the stuff he says on the air.

Stern says what he does isn't meant to shock people. He is only trying to be funny.

And you know what? Lots of people think it is. His show is wildly popular. It is picked up in syndications by radio stations across the country.

And his movie is drawing rave reviews and big box office numbers.

Face it, folks. Howard Stern sells. Howard Stern is what America wants. Howard Stern is mainstream.

This, of course, makes you wonder. What will it take for the next Howard Stern to succeed? How do you one-up a guy who spanks lesbians on the air in his radio booth?

So I watch as millions of Americans rush to Howard Stern movies and simultaneously shrug their shoulders at the indiscretions of the Clinton administration.

And I wonder.

Is that silent majority really a majority? Or have we become so anesthetized to deviance that we accept it as just another part of life?