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

Ending the Clinton Crisis

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: William Kristol
to: James Hamilton

Posted Thursday, Oct. 29, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

I enjoyed your latest, not least because I hadn't seen a reference to Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government since grad school 20 years ago. But I think your quotations from Wilson strengthen my position against a deal and in favor of a congressional debate on impeachment. In praising "the informing function of Congress," Wilson stresses the "duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees." That's exactly what I think Congress should do in the case of Bill Clinton's fitness for office. A censure deal would tend to preclude such an informative discussion in the House Judiciary Committee or on the House floor. In that respect it would constitute a failure of congressional government, and of constitutional government.
You may be right about what "the American people really want": to end the whole matter and get back to "normal business." I'm for moving quickly as well and believe there should be a vote on the floor of the House before Christmas. This means no time would have been taken away from Congress' business of legislating, since Congress wouldn't otherwise be in session these next two months. But I will also concede that I care less about getting back to "normal business" than about coming to a sound judgment on Bill Clinton, which I think is the most important public business before us.
You say that your proposal would conclude this matter "while at the same time punishing a president who has acted shabbily." For all the tough talk about a "stinging censure" and a severe rebuke to the president, the choice of the adverb "shabbily" gives the game away: Censure would be a judgment that the president's behavior has been "shabby." Some of us think his perjury and obstruction of justice are more serious threats to the constitutional order and to civic mores, and that his behavior goes way beyond shabbiness. Many disagree. That's why we need a real debate--one the president's stonewalling (or rather lying) has precluded or impeded for months. If the votes aren't ultimately there to impeach, so be it; at least the case will have been made and the debate held in a serious and constitutional manner.
You are worried that such a debate "hardly promises to be edifying." Indeed you worry it is likely be "unseemly, dispiriting, and denigrating." We had a day of debate in the House Judiciary Committee in early October. It may not have quite risen to the status of being edifying, but it certainly wasn't unseemly or denigrating. To the degree that certain witnesses' testimony might be of the sort that you would like to spare your children from hearing, those would seem to be the witnesses Clinton's defenders want to call (e.g., Monica Lewinsky). If the Democrats don't make it a circus, Henry Hyde will run seemly and dignified hearings. Even if they're not, though, I'd prefer a messy and unseemly debate on impeachment to a censure deal that would weaken the presidency without holding this president truly accountable for his actions.

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: William Kristol
to: James Hamilton

Posted Thursday, Oct. 29, 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
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby