I rarely agree with Bill Clinton's politics. I didn't vote for him in 1992 or in 1996. That doesn't mean I can overthrow him because of our political differences. Unless the Senate agrees that the Constitution (our most basic social contract) is in grave danger, Clinton should remain in office. He was constitutionally elected twice. He seems competent to operate the levers of power.
The problem for Bill Clinton is that so many people disagree with the way he handles social policy. They wanted him stopped in 1996 but the opponents did not mount a winning campaign. In the commerce of political ideas, Bill Clinton won and the electorate granted him the power to operate the executive branch until January 20, 2001.
The drumbeat for impeachment during the Summer of 1998 is getting as much attention as the same drumbeat received about 130 years ago. Andrew Johnson was not in favor of vigorously enforcing the Reconstruction Acts passed by Congress. The decisions he made about enforcing those laws infuriated his political opponents. The President reversed the decisions of several Generals in command of southern reconstruction districts. He didn't like the way they enforced the acts. Congress had passed a law which prohibited the President from firing Senate-approved executive officers. The President fired Secretary of War Stanton because of political differences with the Secretary. Johnson's political opponents in the Congress began to act. By 1868, they had approved a bill of impeachment and sent it for a Senate trial.
Andrew Johnson had been Lincoln's Vice President. In those days when the President died and the Vice President became President, no new Vice President was appointed. If Johnson were removed, the President pro tempore of the Senate, Benjamin F. Wade, would have become President. That man's political philosophy, which included soft money and high tariffs, had many opponents. Johnson defenders reminded Senate colleagues that there would be a political shift with a new man in the White House and they may not like the changes. Better the devil you know. Johnson survived the Senate trial and served out his term.
The Johnson case dealt with the freshly defeated Southern States. Johnson's political opponents wished to replace his political agenda with their own. They came dangerously close to making the U.S. more European in our political style. Europe has a long history of replacing the executive head of government using extra-legal means.
The United States President is president for a constitutionally specified period. Nothing is supposed to change that unless the republic itself is in danger. When we elect a president, we elect him because we believe he has the capability to safely operate the levers of government and the military in our name. It should be very hard to undo that vote through impeachment.
Nixon seemed at the time to threaten liberty itself and was allowed to resign. Johnson threatened Congressional political authority during the reconstruction of the south but survived. Clinton's outcome is unclear. In the constitution there are four items listed as reasons to impeach: treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
Clinton may have perjured himself in the Paula Jones case. Should that be enough to change the outcome of two elections?
Without the Nixon impeachment precedent, impeachment of Bill Clinton would seem less probable to his opponents. The more often we witness impeachment proceedings, the easier it gets for the Senate to remove a president for the benefit of changing the executive branch's political direction. Does anyone believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers for Congress to use impeachment for political purposes? Perhaps the intent was to give Congress a method of removing a president who was betraying his country. This method allows for a legal transmission of power from the traitor and back into the hands of a president loyal to the constitution.
Bill Clinton's political legacy, when separated from his lucky economic fortunes, will not shine from the pages of future elementary school history text books. His bland offerings as president will be as well remembered as the offerings of most of the other presidents few have heard of. Why create yet another deep political crisis when January 20, 2001 is not that far away?
Those who wish to lead as our next president should start running by presenting winning ideas to the electorate. Americans vote for good ideas. That is how our nation determines if the people wish to continue or change the political direction of the United States. We do not allow the decision to change one President for another to be made in the Senate cloak room. That would truly be un-American.
Lee A. Presser
