War By Other Means

Have Republicans taken leave of their senses? They’ve impeached a president against the will of the people on two counts. In a democracy, it’s never a smart move to defy public opinion. As one White House aide put it, with malicious glee, “It’s Paula Jonestown on the floor of the House. And the Republicans are lining up to drink the Kool-Aid.”

Moreover, last week’s astonishing events made congressional Republicans look even more ridiculous. On Wednesday, the president’s military strike in Iraq diminished the impeachment proceedings and cast Republicans as petty partisans, especially when House Republicans insisted on forging ahead with impeachment while bombs were falling on Baghdad. Here, U.S. military forces are in harm’s way, and Congress is impeaching their commander in chief. How crazy is that?

Of course, Republicans felt they had no choice. The longer they put off the impeachment votethe more time they would give the president’s supporters to mobilize. If they let the vote spill over to 1999, all bets were off. The new House that comes in next month will have five more Democrats. That would make it much harder to get a majority to impeach.

Then, on the eve of the rescheduled debate, Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.) was forced to admit that he, too, was not exactly a paradigm of family values. The cry of “Hypocrite!” was heard in the land. By Saturday, it was loud enough that Livingston felt compelled to give up the speakership--and his seat in Congress. “The politics of smear and slash-and-burn must end!” House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) shouted during Friday’s debate. And for the only time all week, Republicans and Democrats joined in a roar of approval.

Republicans protested that Livingston’s case and President Clinton’s are totally different. Livingston did not lie under oath. Congress was impeaching the president for perjury, not adultery.

To many Americans, that sounds like one of Clinton’s legalistic distinctions. The president’s perjury was about adultery. “Who the hell are Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde--acknowledged adulterers both--to sit in judgment on Clinton?” Democrats demanded.

Are Republicans being rational? Not entirely. Much of this is driven by fury at a president they believe has deceived them and the country. Their fury got a lot more intense Wednesday, after Clinton made his move in Iraq. At a House GOP conference meeting Wednesday night, members were so enraged over the president’s actions that, according to one account, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), the president’s bitter adversary, was the voice of moderation.

Republicans have seen Clinton do this to them three times this year. First, the airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan after his Aug. 17 confession speech. Then, the Wye River agreement between Israelis and Palestinians just before the midterm elections. Now, Iraq. In the view of Republicans, Clinton has gone from “wagging the dog” to wagging the elephant. And they mean to make him pay.

Hatred of Clinton is fueled by the culture war that has been going on in this country for 30 years. A conservative activist from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde’s suburban Chicago district referred to Clinton, contemptuously, as “the first rock-star president.” Another local conservative said, “A president is with us today who is a child of the ‘60s. He is the adolescent in chief.”

The culture wars also explain the astonishing outpouring of support for Clinton among African Americans, feminists and Hollywood liberals, despite the president’s faithlessness to the liberal cause. He’s a centrist New Democrat, remember? Yes, but he’s also a Vietnam-protesting, noninhaling, abortion-protecting, gay-rights-espousing, sexually promiscuous, Elvis-loving baby boomer. Cultural values, not economic policies, explain why liberals embrace Clinton--and why conservatives despise him.

Can Republicans get away with this defiance of the public will? Those undecided Republicans had to make some tough political calculations last week. To everyone’s astonishment--not least of all, to the astonishment of the White House--almost all concluded that they could get away with it. How?

House Republicans say they voted for impeachment knowing there’s little chance the Senate will convict Clinton. Impeachment without removal is a form of censure, right? In fact, it’s the only form of censure specified in the Constitution.

Yes, but . . . the public does not see impeachment as the equivalent of censure. And how can Republicans be sure Clinton won’t be removed from office? Once a trial starts in the Senate, it may be impossible to control. Like what happened in the House last week.

Republicans point out that there’s no election for two years. That’s an eternity in politics. Clinton was dead meat in 1994 and the comeback kid in 1996. Republicans are relying on “The Jew of Malta” rule, from the Christopher Marlowe play in which a character says, “I loved her once, but that was long ago and far away. And, anyway, the wench is dead.” The rule is: Passions cool.

Yes, but . . . if this thing goes to trial in the Senate, it could go on for a long time. Passions aroused by such a bitter, protracted experience won’t cool so quickly. A lot of people oppose impeachment because they don’t believe the country should have to go through that ordeal.

Well, House Republicans say, maybe the Senate will make short work of impeachment. Once they see the votes to convict aren’t there, they’ll just suspend the entire proceeding. And people will forget about it.

Yes, but . . . how can people forget about it? Clinton is likely to remain president all the way through 2000. If he stays popular, he and the Democrats won’t let people forget about what the Republican Congress tried to do to him.

Look, Republicans say, the majority is inert. Sure, most Americans oppose impeachment, but the people who really care about it are on the other side. Impeachment supporters may be a minority, but they have intensity, and that gives them clout. They’ll vote the issue.

Yes, but . . . the GOP majority in the new House of Representatives will be very small, just six seats. It won’t take much of a backlash for the Democrats to regain control of the House in 2000.

Republicans reassure themselves that 2000 is a presidential election. The GOP will be defined by whoever wins the nomination. Right now, a lot of voters say they’re angry at the GOP, but Texas Gov. George W. Bush is still leading Vice President Al Gore in the polls. One reason is that Bush has nothing to do with the impeachment issue. Maybe Bush can lead the Republicans out of it in 2000.

Yes, but . . . if this thing goes to trial, sooner or later every Republican will have to take a position. Including Bush. Republicans certainly paid a price for President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and again in 1976.

Then again, the vast majority of House Republicans are in safe seats. They face very little threat from a Democratic opponents. But a very real threat from a GOP primary opponent who might have run against them if they opposed impeachment. The threat of a primary opponent was especially serious for moderate Republicans.

Yes, but . . . an impeachment vote feeds the argument Democrats are sure to make in 2000: The GOP has been taken over by right-wing extremists. A campaign by conservatives to purge Republican moderates will prove the Democrats’ point.

For every political calculation that Republicans can get away with it, there’s an equal and opposite calculation that they can’t. Did Republicans actually believe they could control this thing? Livingston’s sudden decision to step down showed how out of control it has become. And consider this: Back in February, when Livingston announced he would not run for reelection this year, Republicans panicked. They feared he might be replaced by white supremacist David Duke. Or, even worse, a Democrat. They convinced Livingston to run for another term. Well, guess what? On Saturday, Duke declared his candidacy for Livingston’s seat.

What seems to have pushed undecided Republicans over the edge was their anger that Clinton didn’t just lie under oath and lie to the American people. He lied to them. And they took it real personal.

Most of those undecided Republicans were moderates, and their abandonment of the president shocked the White House. It didn’t make sense. They’re not conservatives. They’re on his side in the culture wars. Moreover, of the 37 Republicans who were undecided a week ago, 36 came from districts that Clinton carried in 1996. In fact, Clinton won those 37 districts by a margin of 11 points, on average, a bigger margin than in the rest of the country. Weren’t GOP moderates afraid to defy a president who is popular with their constituents? Apparently not. And that shows how low Clinton’s credibility has sunk among his peers.

How strong is Clinton’s credibility with the voters? About one-third of the American public is intensely opposed to this president. They question his motives. They don’t think he’s fit to serve. And they want him out.

About two-thirds support Clinton, but really they split into two groups. One-third are committed supporters and one-third are conditional supporters, that is, people who support him as long as they believe he can do the job. Republicans are hoping that, in the end, those conditional supporters will turn against the president. Why should they? Because impeachment changes everything.

Last week, 33% of Americans said they thought Clinton should resign now and turn the presidency over to Gore. People were then asked: “Suppose the House votes to impeach Clinton and send the matter to the Senate for a trial. Would you favor resignation in that case?” Forty-one percent said “yes.” That’s starting to get dangerous. Some of those conditional supporters want Clinton to resign rather than force the country to go through a bitter and protracted trial.

All year long, the secret of Clinton’s survival has been his ability to govern. Remember his masterful State of the Union speech back in January, a week after the Monica S. Lewinsky story broke? Clinton showed that the scandal was not affecting his agenda. He did the same thing again Wednesday, when he addressed the country on Iraq.

Republicans intend to challenge this president’s ability to govern at every turn. That’s why they openly questioned his motives in Iraq. The political establishment was shocked when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B. H. Solomon (R-N.Y.) refused to back the president’s military action. It was taken as evidence that Clinton had lost credibility with his peers. Exactly as intended.

Last week’s ferocious partisanship signals a state of war between Clinton and congressional Republicans. Congress intends to challenge his authority at every turn. The idea to make it impossible for him to do his job.

That’s an enormous risk for Republicans. The voters could turn on them. They’re betting that, with an impeached president, it becomes a whole new ballgame. Clinton’s conditional supporters will begin to fall away when they see the president as crippled. They’ll say, “He’s been impeached. He’s lost credibility. Maybe he can’t govern anymore.” And support for the president’s resignation will intensify.

Republicans hope.*