Proving Time for Senate

“Despite all the polls and hostile editorials, America is hungry for people who believe in something,” Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) told a questioner during the impeachment hearings Saturday. “You may disagree with us. But we believe in something.” No doubt the House managers, the prosecutors in President Clinton’s impeachment trial, believe in something, Mr. Hyde, but what? Events of the weekend would suggest that the House managers’ most fervent beliefs are grounded not in what is right for the country but what best helps House managers save face. That face-saving simply ought not to be a concern or priority for the Senate. How the Senate handles the questions before it today will show Americans whether it will follow the House’s destructive descent into total partisanship.

Consider the fast-moving events of the weekend: After Monica S. Lewinsky rebuffed invitations to speak to them, House managers went to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. He then filed a court motion and U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson issued a decision compelling Lewinsky to undergo a debriefing by Starr’s aides and House prosecutors. Republicans said this was all merely standard preparation in case the Senate decides this week that it will call witnesses; Democrats, who thought they had a bipartisan deal that the witness question wouldn’t be even considered until today, loudly cried foul.

The timing of the sudden move to interview Lewinsky was clearly affected by a decision announced Friday by Sen. Robert C. Byrd. The West Virginia Democrat, who has been a harsh judge of Clinton and was considered a critical swing vote, announced that he will move for dismissal. Soon afterward, House managers, with the help of Starr, were hustling Lewinsky back to Washington.

With the injection of bare-knuckled partisanship into the Senate proceedings and tempers flaring, now is the time for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to demonstrate the meaning of the word “leader.” He has set a GOP caucus meeting for today to determine how to proceed. One thing he should do is embrace the proposal of two Democrats, Sens. Paul Wellstone (Minn.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa), to open the Senate discussions to the public so that no discussions on dismissal or witnesses are done in secret.

Lott, who earlier demonstrated an understanding that a short trial is not only to the benefit of the nation but to the benefit of his party, must again get that message across to his colleagues.

Pride and tradition mean a lot in the upper chamber. Let the Senate then have the pride today not to follow the House into the partisan abyss but instead uphold its tradition of being the more thoughtful body.