 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If 6 Were 9, or if They Were Really Close
Together Students gathered together in the student union singing "We Shall Overcome." A populist backlash against the decisions conservative politicians in Congress. A president no one seems to trust. VW Bugs crawling the highways. Can anybody tell me what decade this is? It might seem like the sixties, but a quick look and you'll find that those protesting students are being led by Alan Dershowitz at Harvard, those conservative politicians aren't getting us into a land war in Asia, that president is not Nixon, and those Bugs are more likely to be parked out in front of Macy's than the local head shop. That doesn't mean the furor is any less impassioned, but it is mostly misdirected. We shall overcome? Can there be anything more insulting to the civil rights movement than singing that particular song in defense of a philandering, lying president? Whether or not Clinton was hounded by an unfair investigation, the fact of the matter is that no one is subverting the Constitution merely by suggesting that Clinton might be eligible for impeachment for lying to a grand jury. An affair is most definitely not a high crime, but lying to a jury about it may very well be. And there is a process set out by the Constitution itself to decide that, and that is what Congress is currently engaged in. It seems there's really nothing left to protest anymore, and America is tired of international problems, so people who feel so inclined to cry injustice are taking the first issue they see in the paper in the morning. Screw Tibet. Who cares if Bosnia is still a mess, and Ireland and the Middle East are hanging on to peace by a thin thread? They're not on the front page anymore. But we've got a shitload of protest songs left over, and I'm nestled comfortably with my Starbucks mug of latte, so let us not go gently into that pompous night. That's not to say that the issue has not been bitterly bipartisan. Republicans have not helped themselves by rushing to release so many of the details of the affair. They're doing as much to obscure the issue as anybody. The more they push the moral buttons, the more America cringes. And the more people wonder about their preoccupations. Does anyone else wonder why Jessie Helms had so many Mapplethorpe photos in his desk ready to convince people they were "filth?" Livingston was sunk before he could even get started as Speaker of the House by his own philandering. But it's ridiculous to turn the impeachment battle into an issue of violating President Clinton's constitutional rights, or a matter of subverting the will of the people. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon were also elected by the people, though Johnson was elected Vice President, and succeeded to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination. When Johnson proved himself unfit for the office, subverting the law by trying to remove Secretary of War Stanton, he was impeached. When Nixon subverted the law by trying to impede the Watergate investigation, he faced impeachment in the House. No one claimed the movements to impeach Johnson and Nixon were unconstitutional because they were trying to overturn an election. Historically, the charge against President Clinton seems to be in line with the charges brought against Johnson and Nixon. There is simply no other prescription under the law to address Clinton's offenses. The proceedings for impeachment were and are necessary to continue to consider the issue. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional. The point that there are gradations of perjury and obstruction of justice. Perhaps there should be, then, another prescribed punishment, within the law. Censure is not in the law. It was a political measure concocted to save a specific president. If there are to be special cases, when a president should be punished short of impeachment, then Congress needs to address that, and rewrite the law. Short of that, there is no other choice. This has been the most divisive issue America has faced in quite some time, and it has been over a president and congressman who are not worth our devotion. President Clinton brought this on himself. Hundreds of people, knowingly or unknowingly, ended up lying for him as a result of his lies to them. He lied to a grand jury. It is amazing to me that so many people are so eager to absolve him completely of any responsibility, which makes the impeachment process that much more necessary. The self-righteousness on both sides of this issue has to stop. Everyone is indignant because too many of the accusations, against both Democrats and Republicans, are true, and everyone is trying to find the moral high ground on an issue where there is none. I am as tired of Clinton's shallow tears and hollow promises as I am of the Republicans' strict partisanship. Most of all, I am tired of the implication that not supporting President Clinton against impeachment means the loss of our soul as a nation. Impeachment is not Vietnam, not the civil rights movement, and Clinton, as a president and as a man, is not worth the effort of impassioned protest. So go out and buy a Bug. Buy the new version of the White Album. Protest impeachment. The economy is good. That's all that matters, right? -Nick |
||
|
|
|||
