Paul Simon and Alan Simpson

Paul Simon and Alan K. Simpson just missed the “trial of the century,” for both retired from the U.S. Senate in 1996. But like the rest of us, they’ve been riveted to the impeachment proceedings on the tube and wondering how the trial might affect civility in the Senate.

Simon, 70, a Democrat, began his career as a 19-year-old editor of the crusading Troy Tribune of downstate Troy, Ill. He became a member of the Illinois legislature, served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 10 years and was elected to two terms as senator. Today, he teaches political science and journalism at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Ill., where a fledgling public-policy institute has just been named for him.

During his years of public life, Simon wrote a dozen books, on topics such as Illinois history, First Amendment history and a favored cause: the lack of language education in U.S. schools. His 1984 book “The Glass House: Politics and Morality in the Nation’s Capitol,” which argues that politicians should not hypocritically condemn in others what they have done themselves, seems particularly relevant today. Simon gets a lot of mileage from being confused with the pop singer Paul Simon and also from his striking physical resemblance to the comedian Al Franken, who does a killer parody of Simon’s unusually deep voice.

Simpson, 67, a Republican, was born in Cody, Wyo. After working as a lawyer there, he became a member of the Wyoming legislature, then its speaker; in 1978, he was elected to the first of his three terms in the Senate, where he rose to the position of GOP whip. Simpson had a reputation as a lively participant in political back and forth, with a sharp tongue he often aimed at the Washington press. But he was also known for his ability to compromise gracefully when the moment came for legislation to become final.

Simpson wrote a book of reminisces about his battles with the Washington press corps and, in characteristic language, called it “Right in the Old Gazoo.” Since last year, Simpson has been running the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He and his wife, Ann, currently live in Eliot House, a Harvard undergraduate dorm, where Simpson reports that he gets considerable mileage from being “a kid from Cody among all these big heads”--and, presumably, does not get punched in the gazoo. Simon and Simpson were interviewed separately by phone.

Question: It has become common to say that partisan bickering in Congress has reached an all-time low. True?

Paul Simon: There is an increase in partisanship occurring totally outside the impeachment question. I certainly noticed increasing rancor during my 22 years in Congress. Part of it is the explosion of TV commercials and national fund-raising. It used to be, for example, that, as a courtesy, members would not go into other members’ districts unless they were invited. Now, we think nothing of going to another member’s district or state to give a speech denouncing him. The 30-second commercials that now dominate political debate tend to be reckless, which adds both to partisanship and cynicism toward government. If United Airlines ran commercials that said “Don’t fly TWA” and showed the explosion of Flight 800, while TWA ran commercials that said “Don’t fly United” [and] showed the wreckage of the Iowa crash, pretty soon you’d lose all confidence in every airline.

Alan Simpson: I don’t think it’s gotten that much worse, or you’d see a hell of a lot more disruption. Sure, it’s partisan today, but bear in mind that Senate history has often been partisan. At least today we don’t have spitting or fistfights on the floor, or anyone calling another senator a rancid tub of lard--which once happened. Today, everyone is on a 24-hour news cycle that puts a premium on exaggerating conflict and controversy, so editorialists are always looking to say that partisanship or some other problem is the worst it’s ever been.There was a reason that the framers kept the media 100 feet away from the hall in Philadelphia where they were crafting the Constitution. If the press had been allowed in, all they would have covered would have been the bickering and controversy.

Q: When the Senate went into closed session to debate the charges against President Bill Clinton, several senators spoke wistfully of how nice it was to have the cameras and microphones turned off, so that they could hear each others’ voices normally.

PS: That’s right. The Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a closed event, and maybe that did improve the level of discourse. But you can’t have closed events more than once in a long time. Legislative deliberations must be public in order to achieve validity.

AS: The nicest thing about the closed sessions is no staff, nobody whispering into your colleagues’ ears while you are trying to talk.

Q: The recent standard of Congress has become: Nobody interrupts you while you try to talk, because there’s nobody else there. The impeachment trial, with all 100 senators present, was unusual in that regard.

PS: That’s absolutely correct. I started my political career in the Illinois state legislature, and there, when speeches were being made, everyone was in attendance and listening carefully. Humble state legislatures are much better than the House or Senate in that regard. By the end of my term in the Senate, you were shocked if you even saw two or three other members listening on the floor when someone was speaking, because it had become so common for no one to listen to debate. Today, for every one member of Congress who is on the floor paying attention, two are back in their offices on the phone raising money, listening to their contributors rather than each other.

During the 1991 debate about whether to authorize Desert Storm, every senator attended, and it made for significant discourse. But those occasions are becoming quite rare. I have long been convinced that if anyone had heard Sen. Robert Byrd’s speech opposing the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court, Thomas would not have been confirmed. But the speech was delivered to an almost empty chamber because everyone was outside in the corridors talking to CNN.

Q: Has this long-running impeachment prevented the Senate from doing the nation’s business?

AS: Nobody in America seems to know this, because the media are devoting every page to Monica [S. Lewinsky], but there are actual real-life congressional hearings in progress right now on issues like Social Security and the upcoming census. Besides, I was there for 18 years, and we never decided anything substantive until after March 1. To hear people say that the trial has slowed down the nation’s business, that’s just opium smoke. If it weren’t for the trial, nothing much would have happened in January and February, anyway.

Q: The impeachment has caused many tensions between the House and Senate. Henry J. Hyde, representing the lower body, has complained about having to “bow and scrape” before the higher chamber. In his closing argument at the trial, he compared the Senate to the British House of Lords, which is a pretty nasty insult if you follow English history.

PS: (In a kidding tone.) It is not infrequent to hear members of the House speak with envy regarding the Senate, but we are gracious enough to excuse such things.

AS: Henry Hyde is a big man personally, as well as in body. He will get over this. The people who expect to see the House and Senate paralyzed with discord are going to be quite disappointed.

Q: But how will the House and Senate work together again, after the House has forced this trial on the Senate, and the Senate has rejected the House view?

AS: The poisoned atmosphere will gradually fade away. It has to, because you have business every day. Your enemy one day could be your ally the next. In a few weeks, somebody from the Democrats is going to have to go to [Rep.] Tom DeLay and say, “I need your help on this,” or DeLay is going to have to go to a Democrat and say, “I need your help on that.” In politics, you bruise easily and heal quickly.

Q: Will the impeachment bitterness do lasting harm to the Senate?

AS: Pundits and the media are much too quick to proclaim lasting harm. After Watergate, the Republican Party was supposedly destroyed forever, and look how quickly Ronald Reagan arrived. After Reagan’s success, the Democratic Party was supposedly destroyed forever, and look how quickly Bill Clinton arrived and how popular he remains. All these declarations of doom and gridlock lack historical perspective. The Congress will survive.

Q: Will this failed impeachment have a lasting impact on U.S. politics?

AS: Bear in mind that people are really eager to forget about this affair. As soon as the impeachment’s over, they will forget. If you interview me in six months, you will not ask me any questions about impeachment. The lasting impact on Washington and on national elections is going to be much less than people are now saying, for the simple reason that everyone wants to stop talking about this.*

Paul Simon: “There is an increase in partisanship occurring totally outside the impeachment question. . .Now, we think nothing of going to another member’s district or state to give a speech denouncing him.”

Alan Simpson: “Sure, it’s partisan today, but bear in mind that Senate history has often been partisan. . .Today, everyone is on a 24-hour news cycle that puts a premium on exaggerating conflict and controversy.”