“GET ON WITH IT.” Sound advice about impeaching the president from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic senator from New York.
“Listen,” Moynihan continued, in a television appearance three days before Kenneth Starr sent his report to Congress, “we can have this all behind us in six weeks’ time if we just get on with it. . . . You get that report from Starr, let the Judiciary Committee in the House decide whether . . . there have been impeachable offenses, and let the House vote. Then get it over to us [in the Senate], and let us decide. . . . We have nothing more important to do in the nation’s interest.”
As of now, however, House Republicans aren’t following the senator’s advice. Instead, Speaker Newt Gingrich seems determined to move at a snail’s pace. He told fellow Republicans last Thursday that there could be a resolution to start an impeachment inquiry before the House adjourns in October. But, he cautioned, impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee would not begin until next year, and an actual committee vote on impeachment probably wouldn’t come until June. Only then would the matter reach the House floor. The speaker pointed out that it took Peter Rodino’s Judiciary Committee many months of labor before voting articles of impeachment in 1974. And Republicans, he said, should above all beware of looking hasty or impetuous in dealing with Bill Clinton.
Gingrich, of course, is bending over backwards to appear “statesmanlike,” after a year of to-ing and froing about how to handle the president. He’d like to postpone any significant action until after Election Day, made nervous by polls showing that the public is still hesitant about impeachment. Yet a go-slow approach may in fact not be in the short-term partisan interest of Republicans. And it’s certainly not in their long-term interest, which is to show they are a morally serious and politically courageous party that can lead the nation.
Most important, of course, a lengthy process is not in the interest of the country. Gingrich’s position, though it may appear “responsible,” does not constitute statesmanship. It is, rather, a simulacrum of statesmanship. The truly statesmanlike thing to do under the circumstances is to address the question of Clinton with dispatch. Given the present situation, it is precisely a false judiciousness and an unwarranted commitment to a stately and “deliberate” pace that is irresponsible.
Why? Because delay would leave the country weakened for an unnecessarily long time. Energy in the executive, as Hamilton noted, is a key component of good government. And as long as the cloud of impeachment hangs over the president, we cannot have an energetic executive. It therefore falls to Congress to act energetically to restore a strong executive — through the constitutional means of succession.
Gingrich’s Rodino comparison is particularly inapt. Over the last seven months, the independent counsel has done the type of work that the Rodino committee itself undertook in 1974. From January 1998 until last week, Congress deferred to the independent counsel, allowing him to uncover the facts. Gingrich was a strong advocate of such deference, saying in April that Congress’s job was only “to prepare to receive a potential report.” The House could have held hearings as early as February. Indeed, some of us argued that it should have, rather than shift responsibility to the independent counsel. But shift responsibility it did. So Starr did the work, and he did it well: meticulously, scrupulously, even bravely, given the onslaught against him. The notion that what is now needed is a dawdling, redundant process in the House is absurd.
The fact is it should take the Judiciary Committee no more than a couple of weeks to review Starr’s report, including its supporting documents, as well as any White House rebuttals. Then, if it wishes, the committee can interrogate Starr and the president’s lawyers. The committee should then debate and vote on articles of impeachment, sending them to the full House. Then, the House should debate for another couple of weeks and vote on impeachment before adjourning in late October. The Senate would then prepare for its trial.
Gingrich has observed that we should “take a deep breath and allow the facts to lead us.” Fine. But such an inhalation need not take months. All the relevant facts and arguments will soon be available to every member of Congress. “In a grave matter like this,” says Sen. Robert Byrd, the old West Virginia Democrat, “a little pause to reflect” is in order. Certainly. But due reflection hardly requires months of national paralysis, vacillation, and impotence.
Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader, asserted last week that whether to impeach and convict a president is the second most important decision Congress is called on to make — second only to deciding whether to go to war. That is correct. But the Gulf War debate, widely regarded as a high point in modern congressional history, took only days. Furthermore, as in the run-up to the Gulf War, we have had many months of public debate and speech-making. Does anyone honestly believe that congressmen will be able to cast a more informed vote next June than next month?
I don’t. Sen. Moynihan doesn’t. And it’s hard to believe Newt Gingrich really does. If support among Democrats erodes, President Clinton will perhaps do the right thing and resign. But we know he won’t go easily. This president cannot be importuned or beseeched to resign. He must be shown the door. The only way to do that is to make clear to him how little support he has. And the best way to do that, in turn, is to get on with it. The Judiciary Committee should vote articles of impeachment within a month. The full House should act immediately thereafter. And the Senate — if Clinton is still refusing to leave office — should proceed expeditiously with its trial.
Al Gore for president.
William Kristol is editor and publisher of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
