Last week as the Senate took up the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, and as Republicans argued with Democrats and the talking heads talked away, the dominating spirit in Washington was that of a man whose name was never mentioned: Ross Perot. Twice rejected at the ballot box, he has tricked us into thinking him defeated and gone. But it isn’t so. The emanations of that meddlesome dwarf are everywhere. Close your eyes a moment and simply listen.
Listen to the White House, through spokesman Joe Lockhart, who denounces the House of Representatives’ duly considered and enacted resolution of impeachment against the president — not just as wrong or partisan or bad, but as wholly “illegitimate.”
Listen to the Democrats in Congress — and some Republicans, as well — who loudly pray, above all else, for deliverance from the obligation to deal with this upsetting matter. They really, really do not want to eat their yucky peas. At the eleventh hour last Friday, the Senate was only barely able to fulfill its constitutional duty to organize a genuine impeachment trial. This the Senators congratulated themselves for.
And listen, too, to the opinionocracy, who daily rage at Washington’s inability to follow their orders and finally put this squalid mess “behind us”. The coming trial will be entirely “redundant,” thunders the New York Times. The solution is “obvious”; the public opinion surveys have spoken: no removal from office. Instead: Censure Clinton quickly, proclaiming at once that he has failed the presidency and that he is nevertheless fit to retain it.
What do we hear in all this? The poll-worshipping assumption that what is popular and therefore likely to happen is also, by definition, what ought to happen. The near-absolute impatience with any delay in such an outcome. The explicit contempt for those time-consuming governmental procedures that stand between desire and result. The coruscating cynicism about the wisdom and probity of any politician who dares remain faithful to inconvenient traditions.
The tone of voice and temperament are all too familiar: Come on, people, this is simple. Am I speaking English here? Are you gonna let me finish? Pseudo-populist irritability, the evil spirit of Ross Perot, has the capital under siege.
It is a spirit that was disdained by our Framers. The design of their republic, instead, was for responsible self-government: popular will restrained and refined by an intricate machinery of divided power and elaborate rules. This system is not efficient. It is not supposed to be efficient. Its very inefficiency, in fact, the slow-moving formalities by which it settles the most difficult public arguments, is the system’s glory. Those formalities — the formalities of liberal constitutionalism — demand respect.
One such formality is before the nation now. The House of Representatives has impeached the president. This magazine continues to believe that the impeachment is just and proper and that Bill Clinton’s crimes warrant his removal from office. But we remain realistic, as well, and we know — as we have always known — that chances are the Senate will let Clinton serve out his term. Nonetheless, how the Senate reaches its decision is a matter of great moment.
And here we believe conventional wisdom has it exactly backwards. The coming, crucial weeks do not primarily challenge the reputation and integrity of the Republican party, as most commentators now assume. Senate Republicans approach their duties rather too timidly and apologetically for our tastes. But they are at least doing what they are supposed to do: taking their responsibility seriously and insisting that a trial be carried through to conviction or acquittal.
About the Democratic party, however, we are not so sure. Senate Democrats have the power, all by themselves, to preserve the Clinton presidency. Every sign suggests they intend to use that power no matter what. But Senate Democrats have the duty to do so in a responsible and deliberate way — and to explain why they are so acting. And if they do move to acquit the president, or to adjourn the proceedings prematurely, they will no doubt be tempted to wrap themselves in the reigning mood of braying, Ross-like populism. They will be tempted, for example, to talk of the polls, to denigrate the motives of those who differ from them, to achieve their practical goal by disrupting — and mocking the need for — an orderly and complete trial. They will be tempted, in other words, to follow the Clinton White House and the House Democratic caucus in describing the president’s impeachment not as an honorable mistake by the House of Representatives, but as a species of hateful partisanship and antidemocratic usurpation, unworthy of any respect.
If Senate Democrats behave that way, it seems to us, then the necessary dignity of our Constitution’s forms will have suffered a devastating blow, compounding the damage already done by the president and his army of apologists. Can such a disaster be forestalled? Yes. But only by the 45 Democratic members of the United States Senate, who — even if they are determined to sustain Bill Clinton in office — need not join in a destructive assault on our constitutional order.
David Tell, for the Editors
