Compartmentalizing the Presidency

Last week, members of the House of Representatives marched into the Senate chamber and recited two articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. One hundred senators were signed in as “jurors,” and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was sworn in to preside. Next week, in the midst of the impeachment trial, the 100 jurors and the chief justice will file into the House chamber to hear the president deliver his annual State of the Union message. Bizarre? Yes. Unseemly? No.

The objections to conducting the ritual of a presidential State of the Union address in the midst of a presidential impeachment trial may reflect a fundamental misconception of the unique nature of the impeachment trial now underway. If, in the course of an ordinary trial, the judge or the jurors attended a public address by the accused, even if the address had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case, there would be immediate demands for a mistrial. The “appearance of justice” would be compromised. The judge and the jurors are supposed to decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence presented to them in the courtroom, subject to cross-examination. The jurors would be instructed on the need to “compartmentalize” anything they heard outside the courtroom and ignore it in their deliberations.

But an impeachment trial is no ordinary trial. Rather than “compartmentalize” outside influences, the senators must take them into account in their final reckoning. Public opinion polls will be weighed to decide if the president is capable of continuing to perform the duties of his office. The president’s public statements will be relevant to assess whether his capacity to lead has been impaired. Not only are the “jurors” the finders of the facts, they will determine the punishment and execute the sentence. Thus, a decision that the president should not be removed from office may reflect the judgment that yes, he is a womanizer and, yes, he lies under oath to cover up his womanizing, but no, his removal from office is not an appropriate consequence for this misconduct.

The fact that he can still command popular support and even respect, and that he can report that the state of the union is very rosy, may be the most compelling evidence of all that he should not be removed from office.

For Clinton, the display of his ability to compartmentalize in front of his jurors will be a telling moment. His speech will not contain the slightest hint of the constitutional crisis his behavior precipitated. He will not plead his case directly, but the obvious implication of the rosy picture he will paint will be “don’t rock the boat.” He will carry it off with perfection. Just as Ronald Reagan will be forever known as the “Great Communicator,” Clinton will be known as the “Great Compartmentalizer.”

The State of the Union address gives the president, as the accused, an opportunity no other defendant is ever afforded, the opportunity to testify as long as he likes without being subjected to cross-examination. As his performance before the grand jury demonstrated, President Clinton does not like being cross-examined. He prefers to be in control. And his State of the Union address affords him the ultimate venue to demonstrate that he still controls the most powerful office on Earth. His impeachment has not distracted him from fulfilling the responsibilities of his office. Why should the charges, even if true, lead to his removal?

Nonetheless, this State of the Union address will produce some awkward moments. Should the senators and the chief justice clap? The applause during a State of the Union address is highly ritualistic. Republicans take their cues from the speaker of the House, seated behind the president, and clap only when he claps. Democrats take their cues from the vice president, seated next to the speaker. If all the clapping comes from the Democrats, while Republicans sit in stone-faced silence, the public will be painfully reminded of the partisan nature of the December impeachment proceedings in the House.

The president will lace his speech with phrases that invite bipartisan cheers. The television cameras will be focused on the judge and the jurors, looking for visible reactions. The commentators and the pundits will all be focused on the impeachment trial, and how this performance might affect it.

Ultimately, our inability to “compartmentalize” the State of the Union address exposes a more troublesome question. If this president is to be measured as “a man in full,” how can we “compartmentalize” his reckless personal behavior and his mendacity? The answer the public seems willing to accept is that we can follow leaders with flaws, as long as the flaws don’t seriously infect the conduct of the public’s business. If the president can compartmentalize his immorality, we won’t compartmentalize his achievements.