< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
For some reason, most pundits seem to take the U.S. Senate quite seriously, especially now that it has convened to consider whether President William Jefferson Clinton should be convicted and removed from office.
They keep coming up with reasons we should feel concerned, but so far, I haven't lost a moment's sleep. Consider the lame arguments we've endured:
1) The nation's business will be on hold
for the
duration of the trial.
For one thing, that isn't true, since the Senate doesn't have to devote every minute of every session to the trial. And even if it were, so what? Congressional Republicans shut the government down for several weeks in late 1995 and early 1996, and life went on.
Washington journalists might have to quit receiving spin, and get off their rumps and go out to do some actual reporting, and to them, that's a crisis. But that's their problem, not ours.
2) The presidency will be weakened, so the nation will drift.
Historically, Congress has held the upper hand during times of relative piece and prosperity. During the 24 years from Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln, the giants were in Congress -- Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay -- while the White House was occupied by hacks and vacuums.
Nonetheless, the national debt was paid off then and the nation expanded to the Pacific Ocean.
Much the same held in the 39 years between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, except that Congress also teemed with mediocrities then, and corrupt ones at that. Even so, the West got industrialized, labor was kept in its place with Gatling guns and the rest of the nation's usual business proceeded apace.
In short, the presidency has been weakened before, and it has always bounced back when necessary.
In times of war or depression, we look for national leadership, which only the president can provide. During the blessed interludes, we worry about local matters, and Congress ever stands willing to deliver dams and highways.
3) A full-bore trial with witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, will be a sordid and appalling spectacle.
How could this even be an issue after the Starr Report? The people's House, in its wisdom, made this a public issue and deemed it worthy of passing on to the Senate.
For my part, I look forward to seeing our Family Values senators perk up their ears and lean forward when the question is asked as to whether the Presidential private parts had any distinguishing characteristics, as Paula Corbin Jones alleged, and if so, how she came to be aware of them.
4) The United States will be the laughingstock of the
world for conducting such a big hearing over such a
private
matter.
For one thing, it wasn't private -- if Bill Clinton had been carrying on a discreet affair with a non-employee outside the offices in the White House, then it would be a private matter. But in a government office with a government employee on government time?
For another, the United States is already a world laughingstock for its puritanism and prudery -- even without this spectacle, civilized countries would still deride us for the violence we allow on television and the nudity that we don't, and for enacting laws that could send parents to prison for allowing minor children to sip wine with meals.
5) The proceeding will cause general public dissatisfaction, along with lurid exposes like those promised by Larry Flynt, and scores of representatives and senators will resign or be replaced at the next election.
I certainly hope so. On one side of the aisle, these are the people who try to protect me from homosexuals, who have never bothered me beyond writing a few letters of disagreement, but who don't care if I get injured and bleed to death in the lobby of some hospital that won't admit me because I can't afford health insurance.
These are the people who try to protect me from some neighbor growing cannabis plants who never did me any harm, but happily serve us up to the predations of TCI, Phil Anschutz, Microsoft and anyone else who can write a check to a PAC.
These are the people who want to protect my children from various Internet sites, but who make it more difficult every year for them to find the money to attend college.
And the other side of the aisle isn't much better --
people who care more about making sure that incompetent
teachers keep their jobs than about whether children learn
anything in school, people who keep trying to limit our
constitutional rights under the guise of fighting
terrorism
or protecting children,
people who
always say they're for the little guy and continue to make
the world safe for Wal-Mart.
So if they all fall, along with Bill Clinton, that's fine by me.
And besides, it's refreshing to see Congress actually pay attention to the Constitution. Out of all this, that's the one novel thing that you might want to tell your grandchildren about.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >