To: Darrell,Larry,JLA,others. RE: Impeachihng a President. I of III.
Impeachment of a President.
Nixon's removal under threat of Impeachment/Removal, the threat of I/R to Reagan - that never materialized, and Impeachment, without Removal, of Clinton may be enough data to point to what may be key to this action. I/R is a political action that requires broad support from the voters. The support is less a function of the popularity of the man or his policies. The support is not generated by how severe is the crime alleged, nor the degree of guilt accorded the President. The crucial factor is how central is the crime to the major problems the country considers crucial at the time.
Nixon's mandate came from his promise that for civil order and stability, we look to the political and legal systems. His crime particulars, and those just in the wings, were contrary to law and an attack on the political system's fairness. Watergate wasn't a crime of stealing, it was burglary of the political opposition, of the system itself. This crime (and others investigated, but dropped at resignation) stabbed at the heart of the compromises that made our laws and grabbed power in clandestine ways, anathema to our central purpose of open and self government. Riots in the cities and the campuses, strife throughout the nation, and civilian soldiers under fire, due to loyalty more than principal, this was particularly not the time to move his mandate of law and order into the uncharted realm of excluding legitimate opposition.
Reagan's troubles contrast three ways. First, his personal guilt was never well substantiated. [He was napping and so couldn't be held responsible. Just kidding, he did win on this one.] Second, there was no compounding, no pattern to multiply the incident. This singularity could be seen as an aberration. Regret and apology could smooth one wrinkle, and the extenuating circumstances of the hostages were understandable at our gut level. The crime was not insignificant. He secretly went against centuries of national policy, founded on 'the shores of Tripoli', and against the explicit directions of Congress. But, as severe a departure from written and unwritten laws as he went, there was no sense of these laws being under jeopardy in our nation then. Both Presidents remained popular until evidence came in of the crimes.
Clinton's results were between these two. Deviating from ancient standards of Courtroom behavior can only be considered a severe crime. It is difficult to reconcile court misbehavior being only about sex. The excuse of adultery is of low priority. Extenuating circumstances were few. Logically, the President should have been impeached. There are either non-logical reasons or reasons not addressed. Partisanship, alone, is unlikely. Moral corruption ascribed to all your opponents is as unlikely as illogical.
Can all the President's partisans and the bulk of the uncommitted center care so little about immoral and illegal behavior? If so, despair and overturning our country's, our culture's assumptions and institutions is warranted. Has the final battle between the forces of good and evil come to destroy all things, or is this an issue unaddressed? Few issues are truly new, so what issue has been neglected or been crumbling too long. What issues are so many of our countrymen telling us is more important than punishment for clear, severe crimes and reprehensible conduct where we expect an uplifting example? |
