Friday, October 9, 1998

Stenholm vote best for these circumstances

'Aristos" is an ancient Greek word that means, roughly, "the best for a given situation."

That's an appropriate way to describe the vote Thursday by U.S. Rep. Charles Stenholm of Abilene in favor of a resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate "whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States of America."

A presidential impeachment inquiry is not a pleasant prospect. Most Americans already know more about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp than they ever wanted to. But considering the given situation - that the House Judiciary Committee has been presented with charges of serious crimes against the president, that the president's defenders want to simply dismiss the incidents in question and go on as though they never happened, and that President Clinton will not resign - the House has no other honorable choice about how to proceed.

Stenholm was one of only 40 House Democrats out of 208 to vote with the Republican majority. It took courage to buck his own party leadership, but it was the right thing - the best thing - to do in this situation.

A Democratic counter-proposal would have limited the scope of the inquiry to the Monica Lewinsky affair alone, set a deadline and ask that the Judiciary Committee first consider the historical standards for impeachment before deciding Clinton's fate. None of that was done for Richard Nixon, and the House was right to brush aside such a gambit.

Dangers to avoid

There is a danger, of course, that the open-ended inquiry approved by the House could degenerate into a partisan free-for-all, a witch hunt fueled by Clinton's die-hard enemies that could go on and on like Chinese water torture and serve no better purpose than trying to cause Clinton as much trouble and anguish as possible, as did the Senate Watergate hearings conducted a few years back by New York Republican Sen. Al D'Amato.

But the American people will be watching these proceedings very closely, and evidence of partisan grandstanding by Clinton-haters will likely backfire on them to the president's advantage and, more importantly, undermine efforts to reach a just conclusion. Besides, there are honorable members of the House who are demonstrably capable, like Stenholm, of rising above mere partisan concerns to put the interests of the American people and the integrity of the Constitution over party gain.

Undoing the public will as expressed in two elections requires exacting standards. But it follows from a reasonable, informed view of the Constitution that charges against President Clinton - which include indictable offenses - may be impeachable if true.

That doesn't necessarily mean the president should be impeached. That's not what Thursday's House vote or Stenholm's were about. But everyone wants the whole Clinton-Lewinsky mess to be over. And proceeding with an impeachment inquiry is the aristos, the best way, given the overall situation, for Congress and the entire nation to arrive at completion.