Download Clinton: Impeaching the President Contents In many ways the Office

Clinton: Impeaching the President
Contents
In many ways the Office of the President of the United States
represents a statement of faith and a critical part of the so-called
American Dream, according to which the power of the people of the
most powerful nation on the planet is invested in one person, one of
their own. Unlike the Canadian prime minister, the president of the
United States is head of state, head of government, and
commander-in chief of the armed forceshence the power and
prestige of the Office. But if the trust of the people is betrayed
through high crimes and misdemeanours, it can result in a
widespread loss of faith, not only in the occupant of the Office but in
the system itself and the society that placed him there. This historic
event, like Watergate, Irangate, and the Vietnam War, led once
again to a house divided, political and social disarray, and high
drama (Start: 38:54; Length: 20:00).
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.
Clinton: Impeaching the President
Introduction
On February 12, 1999, in Washington D.C., the final and somewhat
anti-climactic act of the year-long U.S. political scandal that had
threatened the presidency of Bill Clinton drew to a close. As
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist called their names
in alphabetical order, all 100 members of the Senate rose and
voted on the fate of the nations Chief Executive. For only the
second time in its history, this body was concluding an
impeachment trial of a sitting president, the last stage in a process
that had been put in motion after the other part of the U.S.
Congress, the House of Representatives, had passed two articles
of impeachment against Clinton the previous December.
The Senate trial lasted almost a month and focused on accusations
of perjury and obstruction of justice brought against Clinton. Both of
these charges arose from his illicit affair with former White House
intern Monica Lewinsky and his subsequent attempts to cover it up.
This relationship, and in particular the salacious details surrounding
it, had received intensive media coverage in the U.S. and
elsewhere for almost all of 1998.
A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate was required to remove
from office a president impeached by the House, and from the start
of the trial almost no one expected this would happen. In the end,
Clintons presidency was saved by a vote of 55-45 against the
perjury charge, and a 50-50 split decision on obstruction of justice.
Like their counterparts in the House, most senators cast their votes
on Clintons fate mainly along partisan lines, with every member of
his own Democratic Party voting against impeachment, and most
opposition Republicans voting in favour.
On hearing the news that he would be permitted to serve out the
last two years of his second term in office, Clinton appeared humble
and contrite. He offered once again his regrets over his conduct
and the fact that it had led to a lengthy and painful impeachment
process, placing a great burden on the U.S. Congress and people.
At the same time, he expressed the hope that the country could
move forward to a period of reconciliation and renewal. For their
part, the Republican congressional leaders who had spearheaded
the drive to impeach Clinton appeared frustrated but resigned to
their defeat. Despite over a year of unrelenting investigations into
every sordid detail of the Presidents improper behaviour in the
Lewinsky affair, zealously conducted by independent counsel
Kenneth Starr and explicitly covered in the media, Clintons
opponents had utterly failed to bring him down. In fact the
Presidents popularity with the American people was at an all-time
high according to most public opinion polls.
Although only history will give us an objective view of these events,
some have concluded that Clintons escape from impeachment
represents a stunning defeat for his opponents on the political and
religious right. But with even his most loyal allies expressing shock
and disgust at his personal conduct, both Clintons presidency and
his reputation emerged from the scandal unquestionably and
probably forever tainted. As the dust settled on Washington and the
rest of the country in the wake of the scandal that had come to be
known as Monicagate, it was still far from clear whether Clinton
would be able to salvage anything of value from the time remaining
to him as president and how the whole tawdry affair would be
remembered and interpreted in subsequent U.S. political history.
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.
Clinton: Impeaching the President
Real and Reported Events
Despite the constant and relentless media coverage of this story, to
most Americans, the scandal and its political repercussions in
Washington often seemed distant, unreal, and at times both
embarrassing and irrelevant. And despite strenuous efforts on the
part of his right-wing political enemies to enlist public opinion in an
anti-Clinton moral crusade, a majority of the Presidents compatriots
appeared willing to overlook his dubious personal behaviour and
focus instead on his record of leading the country through a period
of sustained economic growth. The Clinton scandal had been
frequently portrayed in the U.S. media as the latest and most
fiercely contested battle in the culture war between U.S. liberals
and conservatives that had been raging since the end of the Cold
War a decade ago.
Like other major scandals and divisive events in American
historyslavery, the Civil War, the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War,
Watergate, and Irangate are a few examplesthe Clinton scandal did
penetrate to the core of U.S. society and culture and once again
challenged the faith of the citizens of the most powerful nation on
the planet. This unpleasant scandal was the catalyst for the working
through once again of a number of major issues in U.S. society. Will
history see these events as cathartic? Will something good come
from them? Will U.S. culture and society and the reputation of the
people of the United States be forever tarnished? Will the fabric of
U.S. society be strengthened?
Major Themes
As you watch this News in Review report, try to focus on the
generic issues and themes listed below as opposed to the details of
the scandal. With specific references to images, words, actions, or
sequences of the video, suggest how this news story embodies,
depicts, or has a significant impact on each of the elements listed
below.
public trust
the Office of the President of the United States
accountability
the President, a human being
social and political divisions
truth and consequences
judgment
forgiveness and reconciliation
constitutional safeguards
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.
Clinton: Impeaching the President
Perspective
For some observers of the day-to-day events of the political scandal
involving President Clinton, which were reported in the most intense
and minute detail, the events of 1998 often appeared as a
confusing blur. For many Americans and other observers around
the world, the legal charges and countercharges, sensational media
revelations, and behind-the-scenes political machinations created a
kind of information overload that may have prevented us from
keeping things in their proper perspective. The information below
contains a neutral timeline that enables us to place the major
developments in perspective and understand how one event had an
impact on or led to the next, from the first public disclosure of
Clintons relationship with Monica Lewinsky in early 1998 to the
Senate impeachment trial that was convened in early 1999.
As you read this material, consider the extent to which, in your
opinion, events proceeded as they should have or whether they
escalated beyond reasonable control.
Between June 1995 and April 1996 Monica Lewinsky was
employed at the White House as an unpaid intern. In November
1995, during a shutdown of the U.S. government, she initiated her
relationship with President Clinton. In April 1996, Lewinsky obtained
a new job at the Pentagon, where she met Linda Tripp, who began
secretly taping telephone conversations during which Lewinsky
discussed details of her ongoing affair with the President.
In May 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Paula Joness sexual
harassment suit against Clinton to proceed. The following
November negotiations to settle out of court the Paula Jones suit
against Clinton collapsed.
In December 1997, Lewinsky and Clinton met for the last time in the
White House, and Clinton informed her that their relationship was
over. By January 7, 1998, in evidence she provided to a grand jury
investigation of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against
Clinton, Lewinsky was already in the position of denying having a
relationship with him. Five days later, Linda Tripp gave her tapes of
telephone conversations with Lewinsky to prosecutors in the Jones
case.
On January 16, 1998, U.S. Attorney-General Janet Reno granted
independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the official in charge of the
Jones case, the authority to investigate the Clinton-Lewinsky
relationship. The next day, in private testimony before the grand
jury in the Jones case, Clinton denied having a relationship with
Lewinsky. And then on January 26, in a widely televised statement,
Clinton denied having had a relationship with Lewinsky or ever
telling anyone to lie about it.
By late January through March 1998, various witnesses, including
Clintons secretary, Betty Currie; Monica Lewinskys mother; and
former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey, testified before
Starrs grand jury investigation. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan
Webber Wright dismissed Paula Joness sexual harassment suit
against Clinton for lack of evidence.
On July 17, 1998, Starr issued a subpoena for Clintons testimony in
the Lewinsky affair. By the end of the month, July 28, 1998, Monica
Lewinsky and her mother were granted full immunity from
prosecution in return for full testimony regarding the relationship
with the President. The next day, Clinton agreed to testify before
the grand jury, thus avoiding a subpoena.
On August 3, 1998, Clinton provided a blood sample to determine a
possible relationship with Lewinsky, who had kept a dress on which
she claimed there was physical evidence of the relationship. Three
days later, she testified before the grand jury that she had an affair
with Clinton, that they discussed keeping it quiet, but that he never
asked her to lie about it. On August 17, Clinton finally
acknowledged his relationship with Lewinsky before the grand jury,
and later delivered a nationally televised speech to the people of
the United States to admit that it was wrong.
On September 9, 1998, Kenneth Starr delivered his report on the
investigation of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair to Congress. It
contained sensational and salacious revelations and was
immediately posted on the Internet for the public to read. On
September 21, Clintons testimony before the grand jury was made
public. At this time, opinion polls registered a slight decline in his
popularity ratings. On October 8, 1998, the U.S. House of
Representatives voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry against
Clinton.
The closely watched U.S. midterm congressional elections on
November 3, 1998, resulted in some losses for the Republicans
and generally were viewed as a victory for Clinton.
On November 13, 1998, lawyers for Clinton and Paula Jones
settled the sexual harassment suit with a payment of $850 000, but
then four days later, Linda Tripps taped telephone conversations
with Monica Lewinsky were made public. Subsequently, between
November 19 and December 12, 1998, the House judiciary
committee held impeachment hearings. Witnesses were called to
give evidence. These included Kenneth Starr and a number of
historians, academics, and former White House officials. Clinton
himself responded to questions, but did not appear in person before
the committee. His defence lawyers argued that while his conduct
in the Lewinsky affair was improper, it did not constitute an
impeachable offence. The committee eventually voted along party
lines to approve four articles of impeachment against Clinton,
charging him with perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of
power in the Lewinsky and Jones affairs. The Republican majority
rejected proposals by the Democrats to censure Clinton rather than
impeach him. Then on December 16, 1998, one day before the
House of Representatives was to begin debating Clintons articles of
impeachment, he ordered air strikes against Iraq. As a result, the
debate was postponed for one day. And then finally, on December
19, 1998, the House approved two of the four articles of
impeachment against Clinton, charging him with perjury and
obstruction of justice resulting from his attempts to cover up his
relationship with Lewinsky.
On January 7, 1999, the Senate impeachment trial began, presided
over by U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Republican
congressman Henry Hyde headed the prosecution team against
Clinton. Between January 14 and 18, 1999, the case for the
prosecution was presented before the Senate. Between January 19
and 21, Clintons lawyers presented the case for the defence. Three
days later, prosecutors from the House met in Washington with
Monica Lewinsky in search of any new evidence to introduce in the
trial, but obtained nothing. On January 27 and 28, the Senate
agreed to hear testimony from three witnesses: Clinton friend
Vernon Jordan, former White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, and
Monica Lewinsky. Their depositions were given between February
1 and 3. On February 6, videotapes of the three witnesses
testimony were made public. This was the first time Monica
Lewinsky was seen and heard on television.
Between February 9 and 11, 1999, the senators deliberated in
private following the presentation of closing arguments by the
defence and prosecution teams. The next day, February 12, 1999,
the Senate voted 55-45 against the article of impeachment charging
Clinton with having committed perjury before Kenneth Starrs grand
jury, and 50-50 on the article alleging that he obstructed justice in
asking Lewinsky to submit false testimony regarding her affair with
him. Since, under the rules laid down in the Constitution, 67 votes
were needed to remove Clinton from office, he was acquitted and
will therefore be permitted to serve out the remaining two years of
his term as president.
Turning Points
In the above timeline there were some moments that proved to be
critical in determining the future course of events, even though their
full significance was not apparent at the time.
Now examine the following in greater detail and consider not only
the political, legal, constitutional, or personal significance of each
but how each altered the dynamic of this ongoing political situation.
How does each alter your perception of events?
1. In November 1995, the U.S. government was shut down by a
conflict between Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress.
One evening, White House intern Monica Lewinsky delivered pizza
to the Oval Office, and had her first private meeting with the
President, leading to their subsequent affair. Under normal
circumstances, an intern would not have had access to the
Presidents private office, but during the government shutdown,
most White House staff were not in the building.
2. In May 1997, the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to permit the sexual
harassment suit launched against Clinton by Paula Jones to
proceed. At the time, the justices did not think this case would have
much impact on Clintons presidency, but as a result of the grand
jury investigation of it, Linda Tripps taped telephone conversations
with Monica Lewinsky would come to be presented as evidence of
Clintons illicit affair with her.
3. In September 1997, Clintons lawyers had reached a tentative
agreement with Paula Joness attorneys to settle her sexual
harassment suit out of court. It involved a payment of $700 000 and
an apology from both President Clinton and his wife Hillary. The
First Lady refused to accept this, and the negotiations to end the
suit collapsed. This permitted the grand jury investigation to
continue, leading to the discovery of evidence of Clintons affair with
Monica Lewinsky.
4. In January 1998 U.S. Attorney-General Janet Reno named
Kenneth Starr to investigate the Lewinsky affair. A month later,
Clinton rejected his lawyers advice that he correct his deposition in
the Jones lawsuit, claiming that he had not had a sexual
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Had he corrected this error in
his testimony, he would have taken serious legal and political risks,
but would probably have weakened the charges against him that
later led to his impeachment.
5. In November 1998, the Democrats did better than they expected
in the congressional elections. Buoyed by the results, they
concluded that the momentum to impeach Clinton had been
reversed and failed to move quickly to endorse a motion of censure
against him. Had they done so, it is possible that House
Republicans would have been less likely to press ahead with the
impeachment process.
Follow-up Activities
1. Identify and explain the role each of the following people played
in the events presented in the timeline above: Bill Clinton, Monica
Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Janet Reno, Kenneth Starr, Paula Jones,
Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie, Kathleen Willey, Susan Webber
Wright, Henry Hyde, Sidney Blumenthal, William Rehnquist.
2. Form groups to read and discuss the key turning points in the
scandal presented above. In your groups determine how each of
them could have led to a different outcome in the process that led
to the impeachment trial of President Clinton. What actions by
which actors would have been required to alter the course of events
at each stage of the drama?
3. In what ways does a neutral, unemotional recounting of these
events affect your perceptions and judgments? Why is it important,
especially in a story like this one, to attempt to achieve such
neutrality and objectivity?
4. A scandal suggests an event or events that create sensation,
public uproar, shame and embarrassment, gossip, and an exposé
of wrongdoing. In your opinion, what aspects of any scandal are
legitimately newsworthy? When is the examination of a public
scandal in the best interests of society? When is it simply prurient
and exploitative?
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.
Clinton: Impeaching the President
Historical Parallels
While reading the following information, think about why the study
of history helps us understand the events of the present.
A Tale of Two Presidents: 1868 and 1998
Prior to Bill Clintons trial before the U.S. Senate, only two U.S.
presidents had ever faced the possibility of being removed from
office before their term expired. In 1974, Richard Nixon became the
first president to resign in order to avoid being impeached as a
result of his involvement in the Watergate scandal. In 1868, Andrew
Johnson, who had succeeded the assassinated president Abraham
Lincoln just three years previously, narrowly escaped conviction in
the Senate by only a single vote.
Although the circumstances and issues behind the 1868 Senate
impeachment trial were very different from those of 1998, there are
some interesting historical parallels that can be drawn between the
two. Among these are: first, the politically partisan nature of the
conflict between the sitting presidents and the House of
Representatives, the lower branch of Congress; second, the
question of what in fact constituted an impeachable offence in each
case; and finally, the striking similarities and differences in the
personalities, beliefs, and political careers of the two accused
presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Remaking a Nation after the Civil War
Johnsons trial took place just three years after the end of the Civil
War, in which over one million Americans died. After four years of
fighting, and at great cost, the victorious North had crushed the
attempt of the southern Confederate states to secede from the
Union, and black slavery there had been abolished forever. At that
time, only the members of the House of Representatives were
directly elected by adult male voters, while senators were chosen
by their respective state legislatures. In the House, the radical
Republican Party, strongly supported by northern workers and
western farmers, held a majority of seats.
Its members were eager to root out and destroy the power of white
supremacists and ex-slave owners in the southern states and use
federal military forces to guarantee equality and civil rights for
blacks emerging from slavery. They charged Johnson, himself a
southerner, with being too sympathetic to white racists in the South,
and won a two-thirds majority in the House in the mid-term
congressional elections of 1866 on a platform of Reconstruction, or
sweeping economic, social, and political reform in the former
Confederate states that would promote racial equality and
economic development in the region.
In 1867, Congress passed the first Reconstruction Act, dividing the
southern states into five military districts so that blacks could be
protected from white reprisals, and their newly won rights secured.
Once new state constitutions, guaranteeing civil rights for blacks
and barring former Confederate officials from office had been
ratified, the southern states would be permitted to rejoin the Union.
Johnson opposed this move, arguing that pro-Confederate whites
should be allowed to resume office in the southern states at once in
order to further national unity and reconciliation. He also strongly
opposed the idea that black ex-slaves should be allowed to vote,
still less be elected to political office, believing that they were
racially inferior to whites.
The Impeachment Trial of 1868
To prevent Johnson from thwarting their efforts to extend civil rights
to southern blacks, the House Republicans passed the Tenure of
Office Act, forbidding the president from removing government
officials who supported their views. Johnson used his presidential
power to block this legislation, but the Republicans employed their
two-thirds majority to override his veto. Nonetheless, in March 1868
Johnson dismissed his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, a
Republican sympathizer. To the radical Republicans in Congress,
this was the last straw, and the move to impeach him began in
earnest. The House quickly passed articles of impeachment against
Johnson, and a Senate trial began.
At that time, there were 27 states in the American Union, each of
which had two seats in the Senate. The Republicans needed 36 of
these 54 Senate votes to impeach Johnson. After a 73-day trial,
presided over by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase,
the senators were called upon to vote on the question of President
Johnsons guilt or innocence. Under the terms of the U.S.
Constitution, a sitting president can be removed from office upon
conviction of having committed high crimes and misdemeanours.
The issue before the Senate was whether or not Johnsons defiance
of the Tenure of Office Act and his unwillingness to support
southern Reconstruction in fact constituted impeachable offences.
While most of the senators believed they did, the Constitution
required a two-thirds majority vote for Johnson to be convicted and
ousted. In the end, freshman Republican Senator Edmund Ross of
Kansas proved decisive in blocking Johnsons impeachment.
Breaking with his own party, Ross declared the President not guilty,
and the move to impeach Johnson failed by a single vote.
Rosss vote to acquit Johnson was significant, not only for the
President, but also for his own political career and the fate of
southern Reconstruction and civil rights for blacks there for many
years to come. Although he won some support from southern
whites and northern opponents of the radical Republicans,
Johnsons presidency was mortally wounded by the impeachment
trial, and he failed to obtain his partys nomination for the 1868
presidential election, which was won by Civil War hero and
Republican candidate Ulysses S. Grant. Johnson left office in
disgrace, but was able to win election again as governor of
Tennessee a few years later. As for Senator Ross, his Republican
colleagues never forgave him for betraying them with his not-guilty
vote that saved Johnson from impeachment. He lost his bid for reelection and spent the rest of his life in poverty and obscurity.
A Dream Deferred
During President Grants two terms of office (1869-77), the drive to
reconstruct the South along racially egalitarian lines slowed down
considerably. Although blacks were granted the right to vote, attend
school, and own property, these gains required a continuing federal
military presence to consolidate them in the face of bitter white
racist counterattacks, led by terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan,
founded in 1868. When the newly elected President Rutherford B.
Hayes withdrew troops from the South in 1877, the whitedominated state governments quickly introduced a series of
discriminatory Jim Crow laws that denied blacks their rights. This
brutal and unjust system of racial segregation would remain in force
until the civil rights movement brought it to an end almost 100 years
later, after a heroic campaign of non-violent protest led by figures
such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
For many years, the radical Republicans and their policy of
Reconstruction for the South were portrayed quite negatively in
American history books. Supporters of sweeping reform and racial
equality in the southern states were widely characterized as
opportunistic northern carpetbaggers, turncoat white southern
scallywags, or illiterate and corrupt black politicians whose race not
only made them unfit for elected office, but also led to their being
ridiculed as figures of fun. Conversely, Senator Ross was viewed
as a hero and a patriot for refusing to bow to his own partys
pressure and placing the interests of national unity ahead of
partisan politics. Films like the immensely popular and influential
Birth of a Nation (1916), directed by D.W. Griffiths, did much to
perpetuate this racist and historically inaccurate view of the
Reconstruction era. And even John F. Kennedy, in his widely read
bestseller Profiles in Courage (1956), devoted a glowing chapter to
Senator Ross and his courageous defiance of party discipline for
the greater cause of American political stability.
Recent historical research, however, has cast considerable doubt
over both of these hoary American historical myths about Johnsons
impeachment trial and the Reconstruction era. Prominent historians
like Howard Zinn and Eric Foner have argued that Reconstruction
was not given enough chance to work, and therefore represented a
great missed opportunity to establish true racial equality and social
justice in the United States in the years after the Civil War. And
political scientist Daniel Lazare believes that if the radical
Republicans had succeeded in impeaching Johnson, then the way
might have been opened for the creation of a more truly democratic
political system in the United States, one that would have benefitted
northern industrial workers, western farmers, poor southern whites,
and black ex-slavesin short, a majority of the American people.
Similarities and Differences
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both the targets of an
intensely partisan political onslaught instigated by their opponents
in the Republican Party. A southern Democrat who had run on the
same ticket as the Republican Lincoln, Johnson was hated by the
partys radical, pro-Reconstruction wing because of his sympathy for
southern white supremacists and his antipathy to black civil rights.
For his part, Clinton is a Democrat whose politics and personal
lifestyle are anathema to todays radical Republicans of the
neoconservative religious right. In 1868 and 1998, the drive to
impeach the President of the United States was an intensely
partisan affair, unlike the situation in 1974, when the move to
remove Richard Nixon from office over the Watergate scandal
enjoyed broad bipartisan support among members of both political
parties.
In both impeachment trials, the fundamental issue at stake was
whether or not the allegations against presidents Johnson and
Clinton were serious enough to warrant their impeachment and
removal from office. The framers of the U.S. Constitution had acts
like treason, bribery, or the subversion of state authority in mind
when they employed the rather vague phrase high crimes and
misdemeanours in their definition of potentially impeachable
offences. Johnsons supporters argued that his efforts to thwart the
policies of the radical Republicans in Congress, although politically
misguided, were not criminal acts.
Likewise, Clintons lawyers claimed that however immoral or
inappropriate the Presidents relationship with Monica Lewinsky and
his attempts to deny it may have been, these actions could hardly
be construed as a threat to the U.S. system of government. In each
case, enough senators were convinced in the end that the politically
inept president Johnson and the morally flawed president Clinton
should be allowed to finish out their respective terms of office,
despite the considerable damage their actions had caused both
themselves and the country they led.
Like Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson came from a poor family in the
South, was raised by a widow, had a number of personal skeletons
in his closet prior to running for elected office, and had served as a
state governor before entering the national political scene. Like
Clinton, Johnson had antagonized a radical and intransigent wing of
the Republican Party in Congress. But unlike Clinton, Johnson held
strongly racist views and opposed granting political rights to blacks.
For his part, however, Clinton has half-jokingly been characterized
as Americas first black president, because of his sympathy for the
cause of civil rights, his affection for black culture, and his
promotion of a significant number of blacks to influential positions in
the federal government.
As we have seen, the historical verdict on Andrew Johnson has
been as clouded and ambiguous as his narrow, one-vote escape
from impeachment by the Senate in 1868. Before Bill Clinton, he
was mainly remembered as the only president who had ever faced
such a trial. Now that Clinton has become the first elected president
to be impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate, he will
join Johnson in this ignominious historical category of U.S.
presidents. But it remains to be seen whether or not he will be able
to retrieve anything positive during the final years of his presidency.
And what he will choose to do with his life after he leaves office is
also unknowable at this time.
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.
Clinton: Impeaching the President
Aftermath
As the United States emerges from the presidential scandal and
impeachment drama that received so much media attention during
1998 and early 1999, there are a number of post-impeachment
issues that are likely to command more public consideration now
that it is over. Consider how what some would call a peccadillo,
others the tragic flaw of a capable leader, and others a betrayal of
the American way of life, has had far-reaching effects. Then,
working in small groups, prepare a list of policy suggestions that
could be offered to Clinton that would enable him to address the
issues in the wake of his acquittal.
An Altered Political Climate
Clintons opponents in the Republican Party utterly failed in their
concerted efforts to end his presidency by either impeaching him or
forcing him to resign in disgrace. This drive was spearheaded by
the conservative faction within the party, closely allied to what is
called the religious right. The results of both the November 1998
congressional midterm elections, and of most public opinion polls
demonstrate that a majority of Americans do not support this rightwing, anti-Clinton agenda. The sudden resignation of former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading figure in the neoconservative
movement, following the Republican election setback, was a clear
indication of this.
Now that the race for the presidency in the year 2000 is looming on
the U.S. political horizon, many observers think the Republicans will
have to tone down what is widely perceived to be their extremist
image, and move more toward the centre of the political spectrum if
they are going to have any chance of reclaiming the White House in
two years time. A person to watch in this process may be Texas
Governor George W. Bush, son of the former president. Bush is a
moderate who characterizes himself as a caring conservative, and
eschews the moral militancy of the religious right. His early
announcement of his candidacy for the presidency in February
1999 may signal a major shift in Republican strategy in the run-up
to the 2000 contest. The candidate the Republicans will most likely
face then is Clintons vice-president, Al Gore.
A Cultural Civil War
The struggle between President Clinton and his political opponents
was frequently viewed as the latest battle in what has come to be
called the U.S. culture war. This term refers to the conflict of values
and ideas between social conservatives and liberals in the United
States over issues such as homosexuality, drugs, pornography,
sexual behaviour, womens rights, abortion, and capital punishment.
Extreme right-wing political figures like former Republican
presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and religious fundamentalists
such as Jerry Falwell have publicly declared war on liberals, secular
humanists, and ethical relativists, whom they accuse of
undermining the moral foundations of U.S. society. In reply, liberal
and feminist figures, including Harpers magazine publisher John R,
MacArthur, legal scholar Allan Dershowitz, and feminist activist
Gloria Steinem, have criticized the conservatives for using the
Clinton scandal to further their own right-wing moral agenda, one
they are convinced a majority of Americans does not support.
It is not clear to what degree this cultural war of words among
members of the opinion-shaping class has resonated in U.S.
society as a whole. According to most opinion polls, there is a solid
minority of Americans, most of whom are people subscribing to
socially conservative views, who regard Clinton and his behaviour
in the Lewinsky scandal as beneath contempt. But this group only
constitutes between a quarter to a third of the overall population.
Conversely, majority opinion in the United States, while critical of
Clintons tendency to conduct extramarital affairs and then lie about
them, remains nonetheless relatively tolerant of such moral failings
in view of what is widely perceived to be his positive achievements
in the more significant fields of foreign and domestic policy.
The Race, Class, and Economy Factors
Throughout the scandal that threatened his presidency, Bill Clintons
most loyal political allies were found among blacks and other
minorities, low-income Americans, trade union members, and
working women. These are the groups of voters who tend to
support his Democratic Party most strongly, and they held out high
hopes for social and economic changes such as a governmentsponsored health care program after Clintons first election victory in
1992. They also were effectively mobilized to vote against
conservative Republican congresspeople during the 1998 midterm
elections that proved such a major setback to the anti-Clinton
forces.
Despite this unwavering backing, however, many of the Presidents
allies have been disappointed by his political concessions to the
right wing, most notably his abandonment of the health-care
initiative he jointly sponsored with his wife, Hillary, after its first
defeat in 1994 and his severe cuts to social welfare in 1996. These
failings have largely been overlooked, however, in view of both the
virulence of the conservative attack on Clinton over the Lewinsky
affair, and the generally positive state of the U.S. economy, for
which his administration is given considerable credit.
Now that the he has survived the impeachment trial, Clinton may
choose to mend fences with these supporters by reverting to the
more liberal social and economic positions that first helped him win
their support and gain the White House in 1992. Some media
commentators have dubbed this tactic his Evita act, referring to the
work of Argentinas First Lady, Eva Perón, on behalf of the
disadvantaged in that country. Clinton has publicly promoted a
dialogue that could help to address the continuing racial divide of
mutual hostility and misunderstanding that divides whites and
blacks in U.S. society. He has also called for government initiatives,
in partnership with the private sector, to enable the growing
American underclass who have not benefitted from prosperity to
share in the gains resulting from the current strong performance of
the U.S. economy.
An Impeachment Aftermath Web site on the Yahoo search engine
that contains up-to-date newspaper articles on the consequences of
President Clintons impeachment trial, magazine articles, related
Web sites, real audio, and other useful links can be found at http://
headlines.yahoo.com/FC/US/Intern/.
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.
Clinton: Impeaching the President
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions
1. Find out more about the political and constitutional process
involved in impeaching a sitting United States president, and the
roles played by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the
Supreme Court in this process. Prepare an oral summary.
2. Discuss the media coverage of the scandal involving President
Clinton, especially any television reports, newspaper or magazine
articles, or Internet information you may have seen or read during
the past year. How would you describe the medias handling of this
story and their portrayal of the people who figured in it? Compare
this event with other big news stories of the past few years,
including the death of Princess Diana, the O.J. Simpson trial, or any
others you consider relevant. You may wish to conduct a media
comparison study using O.J. Simpson: The Verdict Is In, and Diana
and Teresa: The Boundaries of Grief in the November 1995 and
November 1997 issues of News in Review.
3. Prepare an essay on the political career of Bill Clinton,
discussing the successes and failures of his presidency. Some
good sources of information on this topic include: The Clinton
Enigma, and First in his Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton, by David
Maraniss; Re-electing Bill Clinton: Why America chose a new
Democrat, by John Hohenberg; High Hopes: The Clinton
Presidency and the Politics of Ambition, by Stanley A. Renshon;
and The Clinton Presidency: First Appraisals, edited by Colin
Campbell and Bert A. Rockman. A series of articles from the
Atlantic Monthly, titled The Clinton Era, is also available on the
Internet at www.theatlantic.com.
4. Find out more about the issues, opposing groups and
personalities, and main battlefields in the U.S. culture war of the
1990s, and how the Clinton scandal figures in it, and prepare a
recommended reading list of works by the following authors:
William J. Bennett, Allan Dershowitz, Robert N. Roberts and Marion
T. Doss, Alan Wolfe, Frank Hearn, Dana Mack, Robert H. Bork,
Judith Stacey, Ronald W. Dworkin, Cynthia Gordon-Mahoul, James
B. Twitchell, Peter W. Morgan and Glenn H. Reynolds, and Gibson
Winter.
5. View the film Primary Colors (directed by Mike Nichols and
Elaine May, Universal Studios, 1998), and discuss to what extent
the characters and events depicted in it bear any similarity to the
scandals that have plagued Bill Clinton since he first ran for the
presidency in 1992. Discuss also how such a film, which is not
categorized as a documentary, should be viewed.
6. Discuss the role that the Internet, still a relatively new medium of
communications, played in the scandal involving President Clinton.
How instrumental was this medium in promoting public awareness
of the issues and personalities figuring in this story?
7. Read the book Monicas Story, by Andrew Morton, and prepare a
review of it, discussing the role Monica Lewinsky played in the
presidential scandal and how she views her involvement in it now
that it is over. Evaluate this book in terms of its historical
importance, validity, and neutrality.
Introduction
Real and Reported Events
Perspective
Historical Parallels
Aftermath
Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.
Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.