The Wrong Vehicle for Symbolism . . .

Last October, in the opening proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment matter, I called on Republicans and Democrats to work together. I recognized that the hearings could be difficult and emotional because many congressmen had extremely strong feelings regarding all aspects of the process.

At that time, I was somewhat optimistic that we could overcome those passions and work together--in the best interest of America and both political parties.

Well, as someone who is much older than I once said, “You can’t always get what you want.”

Perhaps the call for finding common ground and working together was ill-conceived. Perhaps the law and the facts made this a close judgment call--so that everyone viewed this “close call” through the eyes of partisan beliefs and preconceived opinions of President Clinton.

Like most Democrats, I voted against impeachment (and, of course, would have voted against conviction had I been in the Senate). Given the totality of the wrongdoing, and the totality of its context, the allegations of misconduct clearly, in my view, did not rise to the threshold necessary for impeachment.

Supporters of impeachment argue that conduct if proven in a court of law to be a felony is sufficient, under the Constitution, to require a vote for impeachment. I disagree. All felonies are not impeachable offenses; all impeachable offenses are not necessarily felonies. But this issue has been thoroughly debated.

With apologies to those who noticed my statement in the Judiciary Committee, I’d like to repeat those remarks that address and counter what I believe to be the strongest argument made by those who favored impeachment--whether the failure to vote impeachment has corroded the fabric of our culture and degraded our legal system:

The president’s defense is very troubling. His grand jury testimony, his public statements following the grand jury testimony, his agents’ public statements, are more egregious than the alleged wrongdoing that caused this process to begin.

Alice in Wonderland-like notions pop into my head--watching someone so smart and so skilled, so admired by the American people for his intellect and his talents, digging us deeper and deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole.

People do have a right to ask: What will America’s children believe about reverence for the law, about lying under oath? Many thoughtful Americans wonder whether the deconstruction of our language will damage the culture. What will happen if words no longer have common-sense meaning--if everything “is” equally true or not true? After all, it may depend on what your definition of what “is” . . . is.

But let’s keep it in perspective. Although not above the law, the president--the most powerful man on the planet, the man who has control over our nuclear arsenal, the man in whom we invest authority to protect and defend the interests of the people of the United States, indeed, protect all civilization--is a special case.

Everybody is equal under the law. But we make special provisions for one person only while he’s serving as president.

Few would dispute that the president is immune from criminal prosecution during his term of office. Many would argue that a wise Congress should pass legislation to immunize future presidents from civil litigation during their terms of office. We invest the Secret Service with the responsibility of taking the bullet so the commander in chief will serve out his term.

That the president’s conduct is not impeachable does not mean that society condones his conduct. It just means that the popular vote of the people should not be abrogated for this conduct--when the people clearly believe that this conduct does not warrant that abrogation.

Unlike every other vote we cast where conscience may play a determinative role regardless of public opinion, a vote for ousting the president cannot be blind to the views of those who vested power in the president. It would be very wrong to oust a president without the overwhelming consent of the governed. It should not be contemplated--unless the wrongdoing is so egregious as to threaten our form of government.

Most Americans know (and will teach their children to know) that conduct that may not be impeachable for the president is not necessarily conduct that is acceptable in the larger society.

Those who argue that the institutions of government or the fabric of our society will be irreparably harmed by a failure to impeach the president seriously underestimate the American people. America is too strong a society, American parents are too wise, the American sense of right and wrong too embedded, to be confused. We all know that the word “is” has a common-sense meaning; we all know that lying under oath is wrong and could get us in a lot of trouble.

Do we really want to impeach a popularly elected president to teach our children a lesson? Former First Lady Barbara Bush said, “Your success as a family, our success as a society, depends not on what happens at the White House but on what happens inside your house.”

Perhaps Mrs. Bush may cringe at her words being used in this context. Perhaps not. But don’t these words apply?

Impeachment is not a substitute for good parenting or personal moral values. Impeachment is not the proper vehicle for symbolic gestures. All America should be grateful that the Senate agreed.