There must be something in the blood of Southern democrats. After Andrew Jackson's inauguration in 1829, he invited crowds of common citizens into the White House for a rousing celebration of democracy. As history tells it, the undignified masses stole ornaments, destroyed furniture and made a general mess of the entire residence. It seems that with the aid of our undignified President, some 20th century aristocrats have finished the job.

President Clinton's use of the White House as a profit-earning resort has resulted in more institutional damage than even the most ingenious reveler could have accomplished back in 1829. While some details of our President's exploits are still being revealed, the available facts demand exposition.

Starting in the spring of 1995, Clinton staffers and the Democratic National Committee turned the sale of access into a massive retail operation. Depending on one's contribution to Clinton's re-election effort, donors could expect various White House prize packages in return.

The bill of fare: for those with limited financial means, the expected reward was dinner and your picture with the President at a fancy Washington Hotel. Those capable of shelling out $50,000 received an invitation to one of 92 coffee receptions at the White House with the President.

Impressed? Well, the big packages put such little perks to shame. Any self-respecting individual with large quantities of disposable income would have opted for the big kahuna. A $250,000 donation purchased a full day of fun at the most entertaining presidential residence in the free world. Guests were permitted to swim in the pool, play tennis, use the bowling alley, barbecue on the lawn, relax in the Oval Office, even enjoy "Independence Day" in the White House movie theater.

What has especially irked some observers is the renting-out of the Lincoln Bedroom. The bedroom, which houses a copy of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's own hand, was made available to those who could pay the right price. The use of the bedroom has traditionally been reserved as an honor to be bestowed on national heroes, foreign dignitaries or close personal friends of the First Family. Under Clinton's custody, the bedroom was leased to investment bankers, real estate developers, lawyers and actors. As one commentator put it, on some busy evenings the "people's house" must have looked like the lobby of a Ritz-Carlton.

Some have viewed these latest revelations concerning President Clinton's fundraising tactics as just another indication that campaign finance reform is desperately needed. Certainly, Clinton is not the only politician who has skirted the limits of ethical (and perhaps even legal) boundaries in the requisite race for funds. Reform is needed. However, this particular episode is more significant for another reason. It proves, once and for all, that in selecting our public figures, character does matter.

Ever since candidate Bill Clinton survived the Gennifer Flowers disaster of 1992, pundits have decreed that the American people no longer care about the "character issue" in electing public officials. In the time since Clinton has taken office, his supporters have had multiple occasions to thank God that such an evolution of the electorate has taken place. They have thus risen to defend this evolution of attitude and have striven to reassure the people of their new-found wisdom. "I don't care how many women he's slept with, as long as I agree with his policies." So goes the now established conventional wisdom.

The opinion of the electorate is perceived as being so entrenched on this matter that Bob Dole did not even bother to seriously broach the character issue during the recent campaign. Polls have shown that people simply do not care about Whitewater, Travelgate or the misuse of FBI files. Most voters acknowledge Clinton's questionable ethical judgement but insist that his private peccadillos have no bearing on his ability to act as chief executive. Recent events prove otherwise.

In our democracy, public office is not merely a collection of responsibilities. Each office carries a history which demands respect. In order for our nation to remain cohesive, there must be some modicum of respect for the institutions of democracy. Part of the job of office-holders is to act as guardians of institutional integrity, not to exploit government service towards personal ends. Bill Clinton is not our nation's first president and he won't be our last. Through his actions, and those taken by his selected staff, he disrespects the men who have held his office before him and those who will hold it in the future.

When one surveys the history of our nation, the White House has been at the center of our finest moments. Men risked their lives to defend it in 1812. During the Cuban Missile crisis men strove to avert nuclear holocaust from within its walls. As soldiers fought for their lives at Khe-Sanh, President Johnson monitored the situation from the White House basement. The greatest minds of the past two hundred years have labored at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in order to ensure that our experiment in self-governance succeeds. Bill Clinton turned the White House into an expensive hotel.

I would hate to think that the American people are so cynical that they have come to expect and tolerate this sort of behavior from their leaders. No, we cannot demand perfection. And, President Clinton is not the only official who has defaulted on his institutional trust. However, a line must be drawn. I do not believe it too much to ask that our President not cavort with arms dealers and convicted drug peddlers to round up some cash.

There are those who blame the current fundraising system and would absolve Clinton of responsibility. They say he was merely playing "The Game." Yes, he was playing the game and he was playing it his way. And, that is why character matters. No system will ever be perfect and we must rely on the judgment of those who work within its confines. Bill Clinton's propensity for marital infidelity and shady business dealings may not have a direct relationship on his ability to govern. However, they do serve to indicate what kind of player he is. And, when the fragile institutions of democracy are at stake we should do our best to deny access to those who might do irreparable damage.

President Clinton is notorious for his obsession with the legacy that he will leave. Perhaps a part of that legacy will be the following memo written to the national-finance chair of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe. When presented with a busy schedule of for-sale breakfasts, lunches and coffees, Clinton writes, "Yes, pursue all three and promptly. And get other names at 100,000 or more, 50,000 or more. Ready to start overnights right away."

Even Andrew Jackson would be horrified at the disdainful rabble that we've allowed into the White House.

Noah D. Oppenheim, a first-year living in Thayer Hall, is a Crimson editor.