Tuesday, January 19, 1999
Everyone’s pointing fingers
PRESIDENT: In an effort to place blame, partisan politics
destroy democracy, government
By Michael Bonafede
Looking back on the events of January 1998, with the
tabloid-fodder of the Lewinsky sex scandal, one would never have
thought, that exactly one year later in January 1999, with the
start of the 106th Congress, the state of American politics could
be in such a worse predicament. Surprisingly enough, long after the
country had grown quite used to the extracurricular endeavors of
our red-blooded president, the perseverance of one pesky White
House intern has precipitated the gravest constitutional crisis of
this century. What a way to ring in the new year, let alone a new
century.
The real issue, the one that all the pundits and partisans seem
to willingly neglect, is not the fate of William Jefferson Clinton
III, but, rather, that of American political norms.
What the country now desperately needs, if we are to preserve
and protect our stature and credibility the world over, is to
perceive the difference between defending the President, capital
"P," and defending the president, lower-case "p."
Impeachment, and the subsequent trial for removal in the Senate,
was designed to be, and still is, a political process, not a legal
one. The difference between the two makes all the difference in the
world. As a result, impeachment requires two key elements to
justify the national nightmare that ensues when the process is
unleashed: 1) widespread public support, and 2) bi-partisanship.
Both are non-existent on this issue, and we all can attest to the
political disaster that has resulted, and the hate that now rules
the day in Washington.
The lack of bi-partisanship is not the fault of just one of the
parties, however. It is quite clear that both sides of the aisle
felt that they had something to gain from this issue and were
stalwart in their efforts to not reach an agreement on anything. As
a result, we will never know what the outcome would have been if
the House members were allowed to vote their conscience with a full
set of options on the table before them. As for the lack of public
support, that has its origins in the offenses themselves, and there
is no definitive way to evaluate the two opposing sides of this
division.
In essence, while the House of Representatives was accusing the
president of abusing power, it was abusing its own authority. In an
environment where an accountability gap is present, the temptation
to act recklessly is strong. The House did not have to face any
over-arching consequences for its actions – namely, in the form of
Clinton’s removal from office.
What it had was a situation in which it knew full well that the
articles of impeachment it would send to the Senate would fall far
short of the 67 votes needed to accomplish its purpose, and yet it
moved forward anyway. The job of the House is to more closely
follow the will of the people than the upper body of Congress. And,
with such a delicate issue as this, that means that, in this case,
its job was to listen. Sadly, it did not.
If Congress can go against the safeguards established by the
Constitution, go against the unifying forces of bi-partisanship and
public consensus, and simply act because they have the numbers to
act, then that is a serious, unconstitutional threat to the power
of the presidency. History will not look favorably upon this
reckless partisan circus.
Earlier it was stated that the Clinton impeachment presented
this country with the gravest constitutional crisis of the century.
Some may believe that distinction is reserved for former president
Nixon and the Watergate scandal. But this is not so. Once it was
firmly established and generally agreed upon that Nixon’s crimes
rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," the
constitutional process was clear, and Nixon left before facing the
inevitable. But this has not been established in the Clinton case.
Furthermore, impeachment was designed to guard the nation against
credible threats to the public trust, and not as a punishment for
covering up a private affair, no matter how objectionable it may
be.
The poisonous partisanship now being played out on the national
stage infects every corner and niche of American politics. Without
pointing fingers or participating in the blame-game, both sides of
the aisle need to own up to allowing, and possibly even
encouraging, the downward spiraling of our political atmosphere
into its present despicable state. Giving in to these present urges
of dirty politics will inevitably cause a degradation of our
political system, and a loss of faith in government by the people.
The latter is certainly the greatest consequence.
America is still reeling from the devastating blow dealt by the
Nixon resignation, and more substantial reasons are needed to
justify entering into a similar crisis. How can the people trust
Washington if elected officials don’t listen to their will? This is
not saving Social Security, or guarding national defense, or
reforming welfare – all issues that the public at large may not
have an opinion on or an expertise (or even an interest) in, and
rightfully so.
But the ends of this process would negate a popular election,
and though removal can be justified under certain circumstances,
the role of legislators in this case is to present the evidence to
the people, and then act on the people’s judgment in a bipartisan
fashion.
Quite simply, if the people are convinced that Congress should
proceed with the most serious process next to declaring war, then
they should. Anything short of that is damaging and
counter-productive for the country.
The focus here is on precedent, and this case created quite a
number of them. Who’s credibility will not be compromised by
hateful and dirty political maneuvering that focuses on the private
sphere?
When Congress does not, at the very least, respect the authority
of the president, the checks and balances system breaks down, and
the real losers are the American people. Before elected officials
decide to ride roughshod over our political processes, they need to
take into account the disillusionment with government they create
and/or reinforce in the hearts and minds of the governed. Not doing
so demonstrates a lack of responsibility.
So, does all this mean that "character doesn’t count," or that
it’s OK to run the White House as though it were the Playboy
mansion? Not at all. But who among us has a past as virginally pure
and milky white as it would take to pass a background check by
Larry Flynt? Is this really the standard we want to set for our
public servants?
If we are to continue down this path, perhaps we should throw
away such dated titles as President, Senator and Congressman, and
replace them with the much more en vogue Father, Reverend or
Sister.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]