Seek Not Bipartisanship, but Justice

Before the hot-air balloon of self-congratulation rises any higher in the U.S. Senate, may a mere citizen remind the members of the impeachment jury that they have all sworn an oath to do impartial justice, not to do bipartisanship?

Indeed, the startling fashion in which bipartisan fever has quickly trumped justice as the holy grail in the trial of President Clinton suggests that the Senate is far more influenced by the political philosophy of Dick Morris than by that of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or any of the other framers of the Constitution. A forefinger, wetted and raised in the breeze, seems a more appropriate icon of the upper house’s performance thus far than the familiar blindfolded figure, holding the scales of justice.

One cannot judge the motivations of individual senators, of course, and we may all hope that the Senate will eventually gather itself, put aside its fascination with polls and focus group data and discharge its constitutional duty, which is to serve the cause of justice, not to find the least onerous deal. But the public record, to date, suggests that a bipartisanship of trivialization has taken hold and displaced the disinterested bipartisanship of a shared commitment to the rule of law envisioned by the impeachment provisions of the Constitution.

Perhaps the single greatest default of political responsibility in recent days has been the unwillingness of even a single senator to challenge the claim, bruited by senior senators, that the House of Representatives sent articles of impeachment to the Senate in a fit of partisan frivolity and bad temper. This is false, as any careful reading of the many serious moments in the House debate demonstrates. It is also a disservice to the country and to the integrity of Congress. Surely the Senate does not wish itself to be considered an adjunct to that unseemly and bizarre pep rally on the White House lawn on Dec. 19. Yet that is what the charge of House irresponsibility makes of the Senate.

Then there are the substantive confusions that continue to distort the debate over the articles of impeachment. Notwithstanding the tortured legalese in the White House brief submitted this past Monday, no senator is likely to believe that the president did not commit perjury in his grand jury testimony; Democratic censure proposals have conceded as much and the evidence is overwhelming. But it is now said that felony perjury does not reach the level of impeachability when it involves an essentially “private” matter, the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

The Senate would do the country a great service if it would make clear that this is precisely what is so damning about the president’s behavior.

Any thoughtful person can imagine a situation in which a public official believes, in conscience, that shading the truth is required for a grave and compelling public purpose. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s brilliantly deceptive description of the Lend-Lease Act as a matter of lending a garden hose to a neighbor whose house is on fire is a good example.

Experienced public officials and reflective citizens alike know that to venture onto this terrain means entering very dangerous moral and political territory. At the far borders of the morally permissible, though, there is an argument to be made for traversing that territory, carefully, in weighty situations involving national security or other matters of the most solemn public consequence. But to commit perjury for a private, selfish indulgence? To put one’s family, one’s country, the office of the presidency and the U.S. position in the world through the degrading spectacle of the past year, for a private, selfish indulgence? That is what President Clinton has done. And, inevitably, one is reminded of Sir Thomas More’s riposte to Richard Rich’s perjury in “A Man for All Seasons”: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . but for Wales!”

The Senate still imagines itself the world’s greatest deliberative body. That claim is now being severely tested. If the Senate continues to demean the House of Representatives, confuse the moral issues engaged and practice the politics of expediency in the name of bipartisanship, that claim will soon be reduced to a sad, hollow boast. But if the Senate takes seriously its sworn commitment to do impartial justice regardless of the political consequences, a measure of honor may yet be salvaged from this tawdriness.