Thursday, December 17, 1998

'Moderates' cave in to GOP zealots

By Donald Kaul

It looks as though the impeachment of the president, barring last-minute miracles, will go forth. The hope that Republican "moderates" in the House would balk at voting to turn Bill Clinton out of office is fading fast.

The hope was probably misplaced in any case. The danger of offending liberals and moderates in most Republican districts is not nearly so fearsome as that of angering the right-wing guerillas who are viscerally opposed to Clinton and all he stands for.

Some thought the election of Rep. Robert Livingston to replace Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House was a sign that Republicans were willing to seek a compromise solution short of impeachment. Livingston, it was said, was a pragmatist, willing to find common ground with political opponents. Shortly after the Judiciary Committee voted out the articles of impeachment, however, Livingston said he would not allow House Democrats to bring forth a resolution of censure, that it was going to be impeachment or nothing; preferably impeachment.

He pointed out that a "pretty concrete case" had been made for the president having committed perjury, a charge even Richard Nixon had escaped. "So why was impeachment the remedy for Nixon and not for Clinton?" he asked.

That kind of pragmatist.

Actually, looking at the record, it figured. Livingston, who represents a conservative district in suburban New Orleans, is anti-abortion and pro-gun; he voted against increasing the minimum wage, for easing environmental standards and in favor of denying public education to children of illegal immigrants. He wants English to be made the official language. He has consistently voted to cut social spending, increase military spending and is a proponent of mandatory sentencing. When the Federal Election Commission conducted a routine random audit of his campaign, he attacked the agency. He wants to abolish the tax code.

You have to wonder what those experts who told us he was reasonable do in their day jobs.

To be fair, however, I can see the Republican point of view, even though I don’t share it. They think Clinton should be impeached because he lied under oath and that is utterly impermissible. You know, I envy conservatives in a way. They are so pure. They can afford to make harsh judgments of others without feeling like hypocrites.

My perspective is different. I’m a liberal, a tissue of frailties. I have lied. I have cheated. I have lied about cheating. I am not proud of these things, but I have done them.

I suppose that means I won’t get to heaven. On the other hand, if heaven is filled with the likes of Bob Livingston, Tom DeLay and Bob Barr, I’m not sure I want to go there. I think of the words of Mark Twain:

"Heaven for climate; Hell for company."

From a liberal point of view, the most disappointing element in this farce is the aforementioned Republican moderates. They keep hinting that if Clinton would only admit he lied under oath, committed perjury in other words, they might — just might — consider letting him off with a censure.

Oh sure, that would make Ken "Torquemada Was a Sissy" Starr leave him alone. No chance at all that ol’ Kenny would wait until Clinton left office, then slap him with a perjury indictment. (A Republican moderate, apparently, is the guy in a lynch mob who favors using a longer rope.)

Republicans, particularly moderates, are banking on the idea that the electorate will not hold an impeachment against them. Two years is a long time, they say, and, anyway, who likes Clinton?

Maybe they’re right. No one ever went broke underestimating the forgetfulness of the American people.

But not everyone will forget. There will be Democrats, and not a few, who will carry their rage well into the next century. If you liked the breakup of Yugoslavia, you’re going to love the next session of Congress ... and the next and the one beyond that.

It’s curious the way this procedure has turned the Constitution on its head. The House is supposed to reflect the popular will, leaving the Senate free to take the longer view. In this case it’s the Senate we’re depending on to do what the public wants and, more particularly, the Democrats in the Senate.

That doesn’t sound like an argument for voting for your Republican congressman to me.

E-mail Donald Kaul at otcoffee@aol.com or write to him c/o Tribune Media Services. Inc., 435 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60611.