Originally published at IntellectualCapital.com
By K. Daniel Glover
Conventional wisdom and political reality seldom merge in these heady days of presidential scandal.
The telltale example: A year ago, pundits who love to think they are “in the know” boldly predicted the end of the Clinton presidency upon word of Bill Clinton’s then-alleged sexual involvement with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But last week, long after the extramarital affair had been proven by independent counsel Kenneth Starr and acknowledged by the president, the Senate acquitted Clinton of any impeachable offenses in the matter. The Clinton presidency continues.
Now, with the impeachment trial of Clinton complete, a new conventional wisdom has emerged. Newspapers screamed that “wisdom” by proclaiming “it’s over” and alluding to former President Gerald R. Ford’s post-Watergate speech about the end of “our long national nightmare.”
The Clinton legacy and more
Yet once again, conventional wisdom appears to be wrong. The evidence: Just two days ago, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against Clinton, hinted that she may impose a civil contempt charge against the president for the “misleading” answers he acknowledged having given in her court.
And the fallout from Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent Senate acquittal is sure to extend far beyond that short-term legal matter. Clinton’s transgressions, whether impeachable or not, and the actions of those who sought to remove him from office undoubtedly will alter the governmental and political landscapes in Washington and beyond.
Here is a look at some areas where the impeachment aftermath may be most visible:
The president. Perhaps more than any other American president, Clinton is obsessed with the picture the next generation of historians will paint of him. Much of Clinton’s legacy is out of his control. He will always be known as the first elected president to be impeached and tried in the Senate, and his tenure likely will be remembered as one of the most scandalous.
But he can try to repair some of the damage. To achieve that goal, he must find common ground with both the Republicans who impeached him and the Democrats who kept him in office but who also have questioned Clinton policies in the past. Clinton also must, as he said in his Feb. 12 post-trial statement, view the final two years of his presidency as a time of “reconciliation and renewal,” not as a time for vengeance on GOP enemies. Memories of impeachment certainly will complicate Clinton’s task.
The presidency. Separate and apart from the man who holds the office is the institution of the presidency — and some scholars say it has suffered a greater blow than the man, thanks to Clinton’s impeachment. The damage may manifest itself in many ways: a string of unremarkable presidents like those who served after Andrew Johnson, a shift in the balance of power between the president and Congress, or perhaps an irreparable cynicism and mistrust of American leaders among the electorate.
Here is what Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a Democratic presidential historian, told The New York Times: “The failed impeachment of Andrew Johnson left a wounded, weakened presidency, one that lasted for many years, and I think the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton will do the same thing.”
Congress. Will a GOP-controlled national legislature preoccupied almost exclusively with presidential scandal for more than a year now answer the call of the public and turn to the people’s business? Or will they continue to be influenced by Clinton’s enemies, who congressional scholar Norm Ornstein says are sure to try to “vindicate themselves by showing that Bill Clinton is Al Capone”?
The partisan polarization apparent in the impeachment proceedings probably cannot worsen, says Brookings Institution scholar Sarah Binder, because the chasm between the two parties already is so great. The unanswered question, she adds, is whether Republicans will see the final outcome as a signal to overcome their animosity toward Clinton and challenge his governing agenda rather than him personally.
Process, feminism and journalism
The impeachment process. Throughout the process of impeaching Clinton, both proponents and opponents of his ouster couched their arguments in the context of two previous efforts to remove a president from office. (Andrew Johnson was impeached but acquitted by the Senate in 1868; Richard M. Nixon resigned the presidency before his seemingly inevitable ouster came to House and Senate votes.) Both the House and Senate conducted their business based on precedents of those cases.
Congress likewise probably established some new precedents in its impeachment and trial of Clinton. Constitutional scholar Peter Shane examines some of the legal and institutional lessons that may be applied in the future elsewhere in this issue.
The independent counsel statute. This offspring of the Watergate era seems destined to die quickly in the post-impeachment fallout. Republicans hated the law in the 1980s, when they argued that independent counsel Lawrence Walsh used it to unfairly harass modern-day GOP hero Ronald Reagan and the conservative stalwarts of his administration. Today, Democrats hate the law because of the perceived abuses of Clinton nemesis Kenneth Starr and Donald Smaltz, the independent counsel who unsuccessfully prosecuted Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.
Even some of the staunchest defenders of the independent counsel statute, which is set to expire June 30, have abandoned it as unworkable. The American Bar Association, a key proponent of the law after Watergate, earlier this month voted 384-49 to oppose any form of renewal. And Clinton, who renewed the act in 1994, probably has changed his mind about a law that he said “ensures … an independent, nonpartisan process … to guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law.” Congress plans to hold hearings on the statute soon.
The feminist movement. Clinton’s first five years in the White House arguably marked a step forward, however small, for the feminist movement. But his involvement with Lewinsky and alleged actions that led to a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones may spell two giant steps backward — a possibility that Adele Stan explores elsewhere in IC.
On the sexual harassment front alone, Clinton’s acknowledged evasiveness and deceptions in a sexual harassment lawsuit may give weight to similar defense tactics for men (or women) accused of such crimes. The Chicago Tribune explored that possibility in a Feb. 14 column. The conclusion of the sexual harassment experts the newspaper cited: “[T]he Clinton case will lead some witnesses to evade personal questions, which will greatly undercut a woman’s ability to prove her case.”
Old and new media. An impeachment-weary public heaped both praise and scorn on the media for its coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal — praise for the new media and scorn for the establishment media of old. The tale of the media in all this seems to send a contradictory: rejection of the sex- and scandal-obsessed tabloid journalism but acceptance of the media that in large part created the obsession, the Internet.
So what does it all mean? J.D. Lasica, a freelance writer who follows new-media developments, sees the coverage of the Clinton scandal as “a seminal event,” one that “gave rise to the legitimacy of … the Internet.” “More and more people,” Lasica says, “are turning to the Internet than the nightly news, and that really is an amazing transformation.” It is also a transformation that will continue to be shaped by the scandal that triggered it.”
Where to from here?
In short, the “long national nightmare” wrought by Clinton and those who sought to remove him from office is not over. Yes, the trial has ended with the acquittal most Americans wanted, and Congress and the president have vowed to get back to the business of governing.
But no matter as grave or as rare as a presidential impeachment ends with one vote. The aftermath will continue at least until the electoral tally of Campaign 2000 and probably far beyond. The looming question is whether the nation — its politicians and its people — will respond with a greater determination to improve their government and their society or with an increasingly cynical attitude about their lot in life.
This conclusion of the American Enterprise Institute’s Ornstein, in response to a question about the fate of official Washington, seems apt to the nation as a whole: “We could have another spiral downward … and if that’s the legacy of this, then we’re in a heap of trouble.”
K. Daniel Glover 