Impeachment Fever Cools

Any doubts that the impeachment process can be heavily influenced by calculations of political gain or loss should have been removed by the congressional reaction to this week’s election results and--no less significantly--by what voters told interviewers in exit polls.

This midterm election was highly unusual in failing to deliver additional congressional seats to the party not holding the presidency. It is being interpreted on both sides of the political divide as proof that President Clinton’s affair with Monica S. Lewinsky and allegations that he illegally tried to cover it up are not matters of consuming public concern.

Exit polls were consistent with earlier opinion samplings in finding that nearly two-thirds of Americans are weary of the scandal and oppose impeachment. Moreover, 60% of those questioned expressed unhappiness with the way the Republican-controlled Congress has handled the controversy. Given this mood, political common sense demands that the impeachment hearings be concluded quickly, for the benefit of all.

That’s something Democrats, in their own interests, have urged from the beginning, and now a lot of House Republicans of more moderate or pragmatic persuasion have come around to that view. The chief GOP decision maker in this matter, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, says he wants to open hearings Nov. 19 with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr as perhaps the sole witness and hopes to wrap things up by Thanksgiving, just one week later. Summoning Starr was originally the idea of Democrats eager to grill him about his investigatory tactics and methods. By adopting that idea Hyde may plan to leave it largely up to Starr to try to make the case for impeachment.

That won’t sit well with conservative Republicans who have pushed for an extensive airing of the allegations against Clinton. They are convinced that Clinton committed impeachable offenses and should be punished. But the only punishment prescribed by the Constitution is removal from office, and the chances of that happening seem to have all but disappeared. Tuesday’s voting left the lineup in the Senate unchanged, with Republicans holding 55 of the 100 seats. Even if the House voted articles of impeachment, the 67 Senate votes needed to convict Clinton in an impeachment trial simply are not there.

The election results have revived talk of a deal that would have Clinton accept a vote of censure--in itself just an expression of congressional opinion--by admitting wrongdoing. Whether Clinton would be ready to strike such a bargain, given the election results, is anything but certain. In any event Hyde’s postelection plan to hold limited, sharply focused and fully open hearings clearly has been influenced by a sense that this is what the public wants. That has also been our view for some time. Do Clinton’s actions deserve impeachment? It shouldn’t take months or even weeks for the House to arrive at an answer.