Why Clinton's Foreign Policy Shows He Is Good In Bed

by Eurydice
(c) 1995

I believe President Clinton's foreign policy is his most brilliant achievement to date. Of course as newsworthy events have unfolded in Bosnia, Haiti, Korea, China, Rwanda, Somalia, Mexico and Cuba, Clinton's reputation as a world leader has consistently declined. That is not surprising, given the expectations of "World Leader" nurtured by his predecessors, with their staged extravaganzas of macho assertiveness (to which the American public has been hooked for decades). But his foreign policy, which has been criticized as insecure and uninspired, shows to me and I believe to the world at large, that Clinton is a better lover than any president in recent U.S. history.

What you give is what you get: as everyone knows, that's the golden rule for good sex. If the world were his bed, which is an assumption American presidents have been known to make, Clinton is trying to puncture the stereotype of the controlling chestpounding male, the Beast with the manicured nails and excellent teeth who runs the castle and always knows best. For once, here is a President who gives without thinking of taking back; who delays his own climax to coincide with his mate's, who worries about being perceived as a hammerhead and about which new position and tongue action to use next to satisfy the Other. He never, ever, comes-and-goes. Inevitably, this sort of man will sooner or later receive back deep pleasure and loyalty.

I can't imagine that Stalin or Churchill ever cared about their partner's orgasms. For they could sit down on an island, knowing how many deaths they were each already responsible for, and remap the world with no consideration for its ethnic and historical borders. Now their greed and egotism has backfired in the former Yugoslavia and the rest of Eastern Europe, where traditional enemies were bunched together into artificial nations and spheres of influence that only a Dr. Caligari would have thought to bed together.

Clinton is in no danger of creating future genocides, because he doesn't force the will of an elitist antiseptic Washington masculinity, via army or money or seduction, on to the objects of his desire. He doesn't like to choose, knowing that in our world the criteria shifts too fast to freeze it down to a prefab, staid policy. He gets chosen.

And we chose him because he seemed passionate, sensual, imperfect and lovable in a world of power-hungry self-controlled politicians whom none of us could trust. He stood sexily blowing at his sax, an unapologetic and unselfconscious breath of fresh air among infamous liars and thieves none of us could catch up with. It is ironic that by electing him, we robbed him of his innocence and hoarse-voiced joy, and demanded of him to play both to cameras and to Congress, to compromise and do the media routine like a dancing temple concubine.

But still his innocence and generosity remain apparent and unique in a country used to being governed by sound-biting John Waynes. Clinton does not presume to know what's right for others. Like a tantric monk, he desires at the very moment he is desired, and he desires what desires him. A realized tantric wishes for rain less than a second before the first drop falls and desires a woman the instant her eyes first fall on him with lust. His will coincides with the universe and so he lives in harmony and happiness. What is most interesting about the tantric religion is that its most prevalent form of worship and spiritual training is sex. I actually suspect we are all in our own way praying when we are having sex. And I think Clinton is more in tune with the world than any of his predecessors, because he doesn't require total control to reach an orgasm.

I confess that I am an avid collector of different nationalities in bed. I like to experience at least one lover from each country I visit and then to formulate a theory and a system of understanding that culture and geography through sex. How a nation gets laid reveals its character better than a few years of its ethnic study. It is a feminine way of approaching a foreign culture. I have found in my travels that the best way to be objective about these judgements, as well as to fully enjoy the unique and unrepeatable moments of international ecstasy, is to abandon myself to the native's lead.

And only then can I be sure that sooner or later there will be a natural exchange and they will want to follow my rhythm.

That is what Clinton's foreign policy is about. He has (so far) let Haitians be independent enough to make mistakes instead of forcing Aristide back in power and causing new anti-imerialist animosity toward America. He has not terrorized North Korea nor bombed Cuba nor oversimplified the political issues between Serbs and Muslims and Croats that run back 1,000 years (to the battle of Kossovo at least). He is not giving in to America's quick-solution tactic of demonizing one side of a conflict (a tactic dating back to the Salem witch trials). He is avoiding decisions that will have an impact for decades to come until he's warm in bed with the foreign rulers who have been testing and even defying him. He's not the world's cop, but its gentle, considerate suitor. This is, I hope, the new American international role.

These days the bullies-that-be want Clinton to quit the oral foreplay and start banging away, bombing and choking with embargos so they can get off as quickly as possible. But if America is ever going to remove its Darth Vader headgear, and to stop either buying or raping its foreign policy paramours, it must follow Clinton's sexually secure and partner-sensitive lead into the 21st century.