Slate's Bizbox
dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

Ending the Clinton Crisis

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: William Kristol
to: James Hamilton

Posted Friday, Oct. 23, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

I know you'll be shocked to hear this, but I'm not convinced by your well-argued case for a "stinging censure." I don't think censure, stinging or soothing, is a good idea. Indeed, I think it's really a bad idea. It would produce the worst of both worlds--at once weakening the presidency and failing to hold this particular president accountable for his actions in a meaningful way. The argument that censure, in any of its proposed manifestations and permutations, would weaken the presidency has been made with great cogency by Charles Krauthammer in (where else?) the Weekly Standard of Oct. 19. So let me quote from Charles at length (don't worry; I warned Slate's editors when they asked me to participate in this dialogue that I would borrow shamelessly from Krauthammer):

[W]e don't have a prime minister. We have a president. Under a system that has succeeded for two centuries in preventing tyrannical rule by the brilliant and unequaled device of separating power, the legislature has no role in judging the chief executive.

With the single exception of impeachment. If the president acts criminally, the Congress may remove him. There is no provision for anything else. Removal is the job of Congress. Rebuke is the job of those who chose him: the people. ... The job of the legislature is not to correct or remonstrate or improve the chief executive. Their job is to remove him--or stick to legislating.

Thus Krauthammer. And he goes on to suggest the equally important second half of the argument against censure: that though it will weaken the presidency, "yet, ironically, it will not weaken this president. On the contrary, it will save him. The point of censure is to mark the official end of the Clinton scandal and signal the return to normal business."
Absolutely right. And I'm against a return to normal business--until we render a verdict on Bill Clinton's behavior. I think he deserves to be impeached. Others don't--and they may prevail, either in the House Judiciary Committee or on the House floor. Or Clinton may be impeached but the Senate may fail to remove him after a trial; or, if it's obvious ahead of time that the votes for removal aren't there, the House managers of impeachment might decide not to proceed with a trial--in effect, simply dropping the charges. I think any of these outcomes is preferable to a negotiated deal of censure. Let's have a serious, constitutionally appropriate debate about Clinton's behavior and whether he deserves to be kept in office. And then let's have a decision. I think this debate, whether in the House or in the Senate, would be conducted seriously and with dignity. And I think it would be healthy for the country--educational and clarifying. If one side--the losing side, presumably--wants to continue the debate through the 2000 election, that's fine too.
Meanwhile, the president should govern. Republicans in Congress should support him when he proposes to do the right thing and should urge him to do the right thing, especially in foreign policy. Al Gore should get ready in case he has to take over. And we can have a good national debate over the next few months about impeachment, the rule of law, the presidency, politics and morality, "sexual McCarthyism," and all the other important issues raised by the Clinton affair.

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: William Kristol
to: James Hamilton

Posted Friday, Oct. 23, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
James Hamilton is a partner at the law firm of Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, and Friedman. He was assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate committee and recently defended the continuance of Vincent Foster's attorney-client privilege before the Supreme Court. William Kristol is editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard. He is a regular guest on ABC's This Week With Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post