Impeachment: Learning that Guilt is not the Point

There is always some impeachment talk from the fringe on both ends of the political curve. Recently the Right has been grousing about Obama's selective law enforcement and the IRS targeting scandal. The Left has been disappointed with what they see as his limited activism.  But, politically, impeachment has a history that should provoke political caution. With the unfortunate Lewinski in the news again, the Rube-publicans should remember Clinton.

Congress actually voted to impeach President Bill Clinton. The House voted two articles of impeachment, one for perjury in a trial involving sexual harassment of Paula Jones, and another charge for evading the House Judiciary questions regarding his sexual liaison with White House aide, Monica Lewinsky. There was little question he was guilty of the charges--he was actually disbarred in Arkansas for the perjury; what was considerably less certain was how that guilt was viewed by the public.

Two arguments tried to separate Clinton's guilt and consequences. Sen. Harkin said that the Senate should take into account not only the evidence but also the consequences of impeachment for the nation. So guilt and national consequence were distinct. Then the president's defense attorney told Senators they were free to "find his personal conduct distasteful," but their task was to decide whether the president's actions "so put at risk the government the framers created that there is only one solution." With Nixon as the modern standard in the background, the Senate decided Clinton's disgraceful behavior fell short.

The Rube-publicans really misread this. House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted that on the eve of impeachment, Republicans would pick up 20 House seats in the November 1998 midterm elections. But the public agreed with the Senate. Instead they lost five.