No Consistent GOP Line on Impeachment

After losing a campaign to become governor of Texas some years ago, a Republican named Clayton Williams re-flected on the mistakes he’d made over the course of his race.

“I shot myself in the foot,” said Williams. “Then I reloaded and really blew the sucker off.”

Williams’ fellow Republicans, who are now in charge of Congress, have spent much of this year pursuing impeachment against President Clinton in much the same way: shooting themselves in the foot, reloading and then shooting again.

Throughout this long, tortured year of investigation and scandal, the American public has remained remarkably ambivalent toward a president who has developed the nasty habit of fondling the hired help. A large part of people’s indifference stems from Clinton’s willingness to unabashedly mislead them for so many months about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But the voters did not rise up in arms for another, equally significant reason: Republicans have never given them a consistent rationale for doing so.

In order to build public support for any project, particularly an effort as extraordinary as removing a president from office, it is imperative to deliver a clear and consistent message that explains the reason for such action. But for months, the voters have been bombarded with a constantly changing, often conflicting series of messages that have contributed more in the way of confusion than resolve for any possible action against Clinton.

It’s all about sex. It’s not about sex. It’s about breaking the law. It’s about family values. It’s about lying to the American people. It’s about misusing the office of the presidency. It’s about being a role model for children. It’s about anything and everything, so in the minds of most voters, the scandal was ultimately about nothing. It was just noise, and the public decided to tune that noise out.

Even as they move closer to an actual impeachment vote, Republicans continue to deliver a mixed message. The current debate in Washington revolves around the question of whether the impeachment process should be concluded before the end of the year or continued into the next session of Congress. Stung by the results of last month’s election in which the voters seemed to deliver a clear rebuke to Republican efforts against the president, GOP leaders have been pushing hard to wrap this up before year’s end. Incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston has made it clear that he wants the matter of impeachment resolved before he takes over in January, and most of his members seem equally motivated to move on to other issues.

But the effort to end the impeachment process this year is itself acting to undermine their case against Clinton. By compressing the impeachment schedule into such a compact timeline, Congress’ ability to reach the public with a convincing argument for impeachment shrinks accordingly. And by continuing to talk about the necessity of dealing with the issue quickly, they implicitly suggest that impeachment is not an issue worthy of serious consideration.

The result is that voters, already more consumed with Christmas shopping and vacation schedules than Washington-based political maneuverings, continue to lose interest. If Republican members of Congress want to rush through an impeachment vote, they reason, then surely it cannot be a decision of any great import.

So Republican leaders must come to a decision and must do so within a matter of days. If they truly believe that a case of impeachment can be made against Clinton, then they should abandon any arbitrary deadlines and give the process the time and consideration that it deserves. Conversely, if moving public attention from impeachment to matters of public policy is a more immediate imperative, then there is no reason to go through with an impeachment process that enjoys so little public support.

If Clinton had any honor, he would have long since resigned. But he has not. If Congress wants to remove him from office, then members must first persuade the American people that it is necessary. But they have not. And if they intend to build public support for such an action, they must be willing to invest sufficient time, energy and political capital to make their case effectively. But it appears that they will not.