I heard an interesting analysis last week that made me do some thinking, and I feel it’s worth sharing. 

If you step back and look at how things unfold, often seemingly innocuous decisions end up having deep and unintended consequences — a phenomenon we should be acutely aware of here in these troubled times.

Let’s examine the case of Hillary Clinton for a moment (and please know that what I’m about to say is not intended in any way to bash Mrs. Clinton. As with most other public figures, she has her warts and they are readily visible. My intention is not to spotlight those, but to illuminate the long term and collateral results of her decisions — and hopefully in doing so make us think about ones we ourselves are making in the here and now). 

In 1998, when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual escapades within the Oval Office of the White House, one of his most repeated lines of defense was challenging the perceived definition of what was and wasn’t actually legally considered to be “sex.” 

If you remember that episode, you’ll remember very clearly that Mr. Clinton vociferously argued that oral sex was in fact not a sex act (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”).

Remember that for later.

After the accusation of sexual impropriety became factual and then President Clinton was in fact impeached for lying under oath, most people expected wife Hillary to separate herself from him. However, she did not — in fact, never even insinuated that leaving him was a consideration.

Some people viewed that as marital devotion, and I can see that. However, I think it’s safe to say that in hindsight the majority of Americans saw it as pure political pandering.

I contend that if Mrs. Clinton had taken her bags, set them on the front lawn of the White House and told the American people “I will not tolerate or condone my husband’s actions by remaining in this house with him — but I still fully support him as my nation’s president,” she herself would have been elected president even earlier than the 2016 election.

Why? Because doing just that, most Americans would have had in indelible impression of an exceptional woman composed of real moral fiber and principle, regardless of her political leanings. 

As it turned out, nothing she did from that point on made Americans feels she was composed of either, and as a result was regarded as little more than just another a party pawn.

Stop and rewind back to the case made by our president (of all people) of “redefining” of the word “sex.” Again, those of you remembering it remember watching the “news” and how much that one topic was discussed when everything was going on, and how so many in the media supported then President Clinton’s stance on the topic. The “news” became a literal national debate over what was and was not considered “sex,” and the discussion seemed to be everywhere.

Now, let’s fast forward to America 2017. Recent surveys show that an overwhelming majority of young people in America no longer consider oral sex to be a sexual act. 

Why is that? 

We can tap dance around it, but I doubt very seriously that would’ve been the case before the Bill Clinton situation. By no means am I saying that’s the only reason for this statistic — we all know the mores of our society are ever-changing. But as I’ve heard it said, what is viewed as being tolerated by a previous generation will often be simply accepted by following generations. 

In 1998, we could’ve highlighted lessons to teach young people about the cost of lying, of cheating on your spouse, of even how our national leader is a moral compass for all Americans. Instead, they seem to have learned that politicians don’t have to have morals, and they can slide their own moral compass wherever it is shown to be convenient. 

And that leads me to the point of this column — what lessons are we inadvertently teaching those now watching us, listening to us, learning from us?  

We just can’t take the path of least resistance merely because it fits the moment right in front of us and expect it to be the best path, not only for that moment but for the future. Just like our then-president’s decision to redefine what was or wasn’t a sexual act, what seems expedient for us in the short term may have long-term ramifications we could never predict.

We all need to be very careful of what we are saying, how we are saying it, and who we are saying it to when we discuss the current political environment — or, for that matter, the current moral environment in our society as a whole. We are influencing directly or indirectly how the generations following us will not only view each other, but also the nation they call home.

Our influence, and the decisions we make about ourselves and each other right now, will have a concrete effect on what our nation will be in the coming years. And I don’t care what your definition of America is, being aware of our role in that future cannot be underestimated — nor should it be, by any of us.