Dear Steve,
It’s amateur historians’ hour. Those debating impeachment in the media are looking both backwards and forward. “History will not deal kindly” with the views of Howell Raines, chief editorial writer for the New York Times, or those of David Broder in the Washington Post (among others), Boston Globe columnist David Warsh wrote on Tuesday. He called critics of Clinton “Talibans,” after the Islamic fundamentalist movement in Afghanistan. Harvard professor Robert S. Brustein sees “incipient fascism” in Washington. (Presumably an impeachment vote would signal its full arrival.) At a rally on Tuesday, other Harvard notables warned of permanent damage to the political system, a view echoed by Sen. Bob Torricelli, D-N.J., at a similar gathering in New York that same night.
I have no idea how future historians will judge the current mess. Indeed, I have no idea how you and I will see it five years from now. (Time does funny things to one’s views, as we’ve learned over the years.) But I do know that it’s time to calm down. We’re a sturdy nation. Neither fundamentalism nor fascism are a danger. This is not Afghanistan or Nazi Germany. And indeed, had the full House of Representatives decided to ignore the situation in Iraq and debate impeachment, Saddam Hussein might have learned an important lesson. Our government is not easily crippled; petty and dangerous tyrants abroad cannot disrupt the American constitutional order.
Alan Dershowitz–the man who argued O.J. Simpson was totally innocent–has worked himself into a frenzy of righteous anger over the question of Clinton’s guilt. He too sees a vote against impeachment as “a vote against fundamentalism.” “If this president is impeached,” he said on Monday night’s Geraldo, “it will be a great victory for the forces of evil–evil–genuine evil.” People who support “white supremacist organizations” will have won. Clinton’s opponents are “the mad dogs of radicalism.” If they prevail, the “separation of church and state [will] be abrogated.”
Dershowitz and company seem totally unhinged. Talk about haters. What has possessed them? Obviously, Dershowitz wants no trial in the Senate. Odd. I would think he would welcome a more thorough review of the facts, which a Senate trial would provide. And that he would see a courtroom (in effect) as precisely the arena in which to establish guilt or innocence.
Dershowitz, Brustein, Torricelli and others are certainly casting a vote of no confidence in Clinton’s chosen successor, a man undeserving of their distrust and emnity. There are serious people on both sides of the debate; why not hear them out? Why substitute an emotional tear for rational discourse?
And again, why not establish the facts, so future historians, at least, won’t go totally berserk?
Abby
