This week marks the beginning of what should be the most solemn event of the century. For the first time in a hundred and thirty years, the President of the United States will face removal from office as the Senate tries him. A solemn occasion in principle but in reality a charade that ranks with professional wrestling in its seriousness. With only 55 Senate seats, the Republicans have literally no chance of succeeding in "Impeachamania '99." Yet, despite the protests of the public, the press and even those posed by common sense, the GOP insists on embarking on what promises to be one of the most entertaining suicide missions in the nation's long history.
For all of his faults, and he undoubtedly has many, William Jefferson Clinton will not be impeached, nor does he deserve to be. He may be morally reprehensible and his actions may disgust anyone not named Larry Flynt, but those are hardly grounds to convict him. And for what? This trial is ostensibly, about Clinton's lying under oath in front of the grand jury. Considering the source of these allegations, one would be well advised to take them with a grain of salt. One politician accusing another of deceit and immorality is tantamount to one professional athlete calling another greedy, or the Pope condemning Moses for being a "religious zealot." Anyone who expects an honest politician may as well board their spaceship and return to Pluto because you've sure come to the wrong place.
However, this entire charade is not so much about perjury or morality as much as it is about airing the President's dirty laundry for yet another time. How else do you explain the GOP's fervent desire to parade the likes of Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp in front of the nation. What exactly will these two legal luminaries discuss? The socioeconomic detriment Clinton's actions had on the nation? The historical and constitutional ramifications of allowing the President to remain in office? After all, the only reason the President is being tried is for lying under oath. Anything else would simply be rehashing the tawdry aspects of his private life, something even the GOP knows they cannot legally do.
Furthermore, I am at a loss to see how the removal of the President would serve the best interests of the nation. Who exactly stands to gain from this ludicrous notion? Can you imagine the disastrous effects on an already unstable world economy if the most powerful nation in the world chooses to decapitate itself? How would Wall Street react? Is it worth sending the world into an economic tailspin to remove a creep from office? Hardly.
Surely, the Republicans stand to gain something; after all, they are the ones steadfastly pursuing this objective. Unfortunately, the facts do not bear out this supposition. Let's not forget how badly the Republicans were trounced in last November's elections, a sure sign of the public's weariness of their anti-Clinton crusade. One can only fathom the backlash they would receive if they succeeded in ousting the President from office against the wishes of the American people. More importantly if Clinton is convicted, the GOP would have to face an Al Gore in 2000 who would be fresh off a year as interim President. As of now, he has done nothing to distinguish himself as a formidable leader but as President he may very well do just that. The Republicans face the very real specter of entering the new millennium without control of either Congress or the Presidency.
Ah, but the American people "deserve" a better leader than Clinton. It would be morally outrageous to force them to "succumb" to another two years of his leadership. Unfortunately for the GOP, the American people have no qualms about allowing the President to finish his term. Poll after poll has shown a majority against impeachment. Even normal people throughout the nation are not convinced that perjury, especially about something as mundane as a sexual affair, is an impeachable offense. President Clinton owns a 73% approval rating; a figure that actually rose after Congress impeached him. If he was actually convicted, he might turn out to be the first man to leave office with 98% of the country backing him.
Nevertheless, it surely is the duty of the Republican Party to make sure that such a man is not allowed to continue to run the nation. After all, how can he effectively run the nation with the specter of impeachment hanging over his head? Unfortunately, he is doing just that. I defy anyone to show me a situation in which the President has not acted in accordance with his responsibilities because of the legal mess in which he is currently involved. If anyone has become consumed with impeachment, it is the GOP. Their stance on many, supposedly less important issues, such as taxes, education and Social Security have been a garbled mess as they have stubbornly focused on impeachment. In November's elections they ran without a specific agenda save for the oh-so-effective "Clinton is the anti-Christ" platform. I believe the nation demonstrated how popular that issue was when they summarily ejected a good number of Republicans from their posts.
Despite these factors, Republicans insist on forging blindly ahead, perhaps hoping that they can bore the public that we will forget that there is no basis for this witch hunt and in a moment of confusion throw our support behind Cotton Mather and Co. Of course, some would say that turning around 73% of the nation is an impossible mission, but since when did the kamikazes care about such minor technicalities. On with the show!
