|
From patriotnews.com Archives
HYPOCRITE, n., One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises. Since the Lewinsky affair first surfaced in the national news in January, politicians, media personalities and media lawyers have been involved in a hypocritical and never-ending game of "what's it all about?" My Democratic friends have maintained, and continue to maintain, that "it's all about sex," while my Republican friends insist that "it's all about perjury and obstruction of justice." As events unfolded, these basic positions evolved into today's Democratic position that, "it's not bad enough to warrant impeachment," and the Republican position that, "it's time to hold impeachment inquiries." My position has always been, and remains, that it's all about partisan politics, and calling it anything else is both hypocritical and obtuse. Since the current question is "to impeach, or not to impeach," and since my basic allegiance is to the Constitution, I thought it might be good to point out the constitutional side of things. First, it's important to understand that the founding fathers thought things out pretty well. Among other things, they anticipated that their descendants would inevitably try to use the Constitution for political reasons, or to otherwise bend inviolate principles by misconstruing or misrepresenting the collective intent of the founders as expressed in the Constitution. It's been tried, and it's been done. Thomas Jefferson, the architect of our freedom, wrote (in a letter to William Johnson on June 12, 1823):
Therein lies the problem for most of us. More than two hundred years have passed since the Constitution was adopted, and much has changed in the intervening years. Most of us have no idea what folks talked about in those days, and therefore no point of reference to dispute any politician's claim that our president should, for example, be censured and fined. A good idea, perhaps, but clearly not within the powers of Congress to impose nor enforce. Fortunately for us, the founding fathers talked about politics, including impeachment. At the Constitutional Convention, for instance, James Madison confirmed his agreement with Alexander Hamilton's views as stated in The Federalist Papers: The subjects of its [the court for trial of impeachment, the Senate] jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. Clearly, at least Madison and Hamilton agreed that impeachment was a political remedy for a political offense. It's important to understand that, constitutionally, Congress has only two choices: 1) to impeach, or 2) not to impeach. That's it. There are no other choices. The Constitution says, in Article 1, Section 3:
That's not hard to understand, and won't bear interpretation. The Congress has no constitutional authority to "censure" or "fine" the president. They must either fish or cut bait. It's also clearly about partisan politics. Georgia's 7th District representative, Bob Barr (R), has been among the most vocal in recent days, calling for "immediate" impeachment inquiries. But this isn't a sudden inspiration for the congressman. He's been repeating his call for impeachment since at least the fall of 1997, when he penned an appeal in The Texas Review of Law and Politics that made his intentions clear. Strangely enough, however, he made no mention of Monica Lewinsky — his charges revolved around presidential delaying tactics in the Whitewater investigation. Sex... Crimes... It's Just Politics I'm fond of pointing out that "perspective is everything." That single statement explains almost everything there is to know about politics. In an article last month, I wrote: "One thing we've been consistent about regarding politicians, is that they are more alike than not. They are, in fact, so much alike that almost anything you can say of one, can be said of almost any other. Politicians are more alike than Baptists, Catholics, Jews, or any other religious aggregation. And the proof of that pudding was Congressman Dan Burton's (R-IN) confession that he'd been separated "three times" during his 38-year marriage and had fathered an illegitimate son." Further proof that the president is in good company came with the revelations concerning House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde's (R-IL) "youthful indiscretions" with a married woman when he was Clinton's age, and Rep. Helen Chenoweth's (R-ID) similar confession of marital infidelity (in her case she was "the other woman"). To my mind, it is hypocrisy that neither Mr. Hyde, Mr. Burton, nor Ms. Chenoweth have had the honesty and fortitude to recuse themselves from any further considerations revolving around the president's sex life. But then that's just my perspective — and I've often been called a hypocrite. On the pages of last month's Gridlock & Load, I suggested the trouble with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation was that it ran counter to our cultural reverence for the idea of privacy, especially in the area of sex. That appears to be holding true, as a majority of Americans, even in the aftermath of the now-infamous Starr report, continue to believe the president should not be impeached over his misdeeds. It's because of our national preoccupation with, and taboos against, sex. English playwright George Bernard Shaw caught the essence of America's attitude toward sex when he said, "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part." And most of us continue to adhere to this basically absurd principle. I, personally, have adhered to it three times, though I think I've got it figured out now. In practice, however, a majority of American men of a certain age have, at one time or another, found themselves in a position analagous to that in which the president finds himself, and having found it most uncomfortable can empathize with Mr. Clinton. Likewise, many American women have been on the other side of the equation and can empathize with Hillary. This "coed empathy" probably accounts for the majority feeling against impeachment. Folks who've "been there, done that" don't want go back and do it again, even vicariously through the president and first lady — and these folks will continue to find it hard to condemn him for succumbing to what is certainly mankind's most common cultural affliction. If prostitution is the world's oldest profession, certainly the world's oldest social sin is adultery — and adultery crosses the gender gap. In coming weeks, you'll hear a lot of talk about "impeachable offenses." Though I'd maintain that the founding fathers reasoned those offenses to be political in nature, rather than personal or criminal, I'd concede that in fact Congress can impeach and convict the president on just about any charge they believe will survive the scrutiny of the voters. Former President Gerald Ford, the beneficiary of the nation's last impeachment inquiry, asked and answered the question in 1970 after he (in his capacity as House Minority Leader) introduced a resolution to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office. Regardless of political persuasion, most folks would probably agree that since we elect our congressmen and senators, that to some common degree the institutions reflect our cultural mores, political values and sexual habits, compounded by the reelection imperative. That being the case, the wonder is that only three of them have suffered personal embarrassment. Certainly there are others besides Mr. Burton, Mr. Hyde and Ms. Chenoweth, as well as prominent Democrats whom have soiled the vows of marriage. And the speed with which the parties rushed to disclaim further "intrusions" into the private lives of congressmen and senators speaks clearly to the institutional fear (and certainty) that more are in danger of exposure, and the inescapable conclusion that more will be exposed in coming weeks and months. Members of the Fourth Estate should expect the same treatment as well. Some things are impossible to predict, but both Republicans and Democrats realize that the die has been cast and the genie loosed. They've allowed an "unspeakable" subject, with unpredictable demographics, to enter, for the first time, into the run for the middle ground that swings elections. They've eliminated potential political legends by making the ultimate political goal unattainable except by the most virtuous among us, regardless of intellect or ability. They've changed the political ground rules. And they've certainly forever ruined any presidential aspirations I might have had — probably you too. I think that Republicans made a couple of incorrect assessments of the body politic. In point of fact, the religious right has comprised a large part of the "swing" in recent elections, and in certain areas of the country represents a near majority. But Republicans who've never sat near the "Amen corner" don't truly understand how the gospel works. To start with, absent sin, many notable evangelists simply could not have been. The whole born again experience is predicated on sin and forgiveness, and forgiveness often wins the hallelujah chorus — it's what makes the experience of being saved universal. In fact, every evangelist I've heard (and I've heard many), begins his sermon with a confession of his egregious sins, which, confessed, repented, and "washed in the blood," are the foundation of his belief and his authority for calling YOU to the gospel. Truth is, now that President Clinton has confessed and repented, he's fully eligible for forgiveness, and a large number of Christians are going to forgive him and change their minds on impeachment. I fully expect that to happen and will be among the first in the flock to say "Amen." If you'd like to seriously address this article, please send email, subject, "Letter to the Editor," to patrioteditor@comcast.net. Your comments will be carefully considered and if meritorious will be published. We will not publish email that is hateful, disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate. If you'd just like to argue with the writer, between river trips you may catch him at Faded Glory Political Forum, where he is a regular.
© Copyright by patriotnews.com |
MUNCIE, Ind. (G&L) — The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce, defines the word hypocrite as follows: