Should the President Be Impeached?
A Sermon Given
by Rev. Roger Fritts
September 13, 1998
at Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Bethesda, Maryland
The other night Jay Leno began his monologue with an update from
the news desk. As of this moment, he announced to his audience,
"Bill Clinton is still President." The President, said Leno, continues
his "Apology 98: The World Tour." He has apologized in
Washington, in Ireland, in Florida, and, Leno said, has vowed to
apologize personally to every past and present member of his
Cabinet. Imagine, Leno cynically joked, how many prisons the
President will have to visit to if he wants to apologize to all his
former cabinet members.
However, Jay Leno, is never more skeptical about politicians
than the founders themselves. For it was the special wisdom of our
nation's founders to create a government based on an astute
understanding of the nature of people. They realized that humans
can be ambitious, malevolent, and predatory.
Madison said: "What is government, but the greatest of all
reflections on human nature?"
Hamilton said: "In framing a government you must first
enable the government to control the governed, and next oblige it to
control itself."
Franklin said: "If men were angels, no government would be
necessary."
The issue was how to make an effective government when the
authors of the Constitution trusted neither the leaders nor the
followers. They decided that the best answer was to create a
structure with a complex system of checks and balances. Their goal
was to compensate for the weakness in people's characters. In the
words of Madison:
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. Power must
be met with power.
The structure is not ideal. It did not end slavery, or protect
Native Americans, or create a society with economic justice. Still,
unlike nations that live in cycles of dictatorships and revolutions, the
Government of the United States has continued in spite of a civil
war and many imperfect leaders. The constitutional checks and
balances have protected us from many opportunists, from the
paranoid and from the ignorant. History has confirmed the
Founders' distrust of human nature.
Consider the Presidency of Ulysses Grant. Grant entered the
White House in March of 1869, politically inexperienced, and at age
forty-six, the youngest man yet elected President. Grant won re-election easily in 1872, with a large margin. However, trouble was
brewing.
During the campaign, newspapers discovered that prominent
friends of Grant were involved in a shady corporation designed to
siphon profits of the Union Pacific Railroad. More scandal followed
in 1875. The Secretary of the Treasury exposed the operation of a
whiskey ring that had the aid of high government officials in
defrauding the government of tax revenues. The evidence showed
that even the President's private secretary, was involved. Congress
impeached Grant's Secretary of War on charges of accepting bribes.
Because Grant's own responsibility for the scandals was
indirect, his own impeachment was never considered. Nevertheless,
in the end historians have connected the heroic name Grant earned
in war with a corrupt administration. Grant ended his second term
discouraged and sickened. He apologized to Congress and the
American people, saying: "Failures have been errors of judgment,
not of intent."
Also, consider the Presidency of Warren Harding. Harding
entered the White House in March of 1921, elected on a Republican
platform pledging a nostalgic "return to normalcy" following World
War I. He had been voted into office by the widest popular margin
-- 60.3 percent -- recorded to that time.
Harding's great weakness lay in his loosely selected and
largely unsupervised cabinet. His lesser appointments included
many who were either unqualified for public office, politically
naive, or plainly dishonest. By the spring of 1923, rumors of
corruption were circulating in Washington. A Senator gathered
evidence to expose the Teapot Dome Scandal, in which the
Secretary of the Interior had secretly leased federal oil reserves to
associates in the business world. Impeachment of the President,
however, never became an issue, because on the midst of the
investigation, Harding set out on a transcontinental tour. He arrived
in San Francisco in a state of exhaustion and died amid conflicting
rumors as to the cause of his illness. Harding's political naivete and
lax administrative standards were apparent after the exposure of
gross misconduct by many of his most trusted appointees, some of
whom drew long prison terms.
Also, consider the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Nixon
entered the White House on January 20, 1969. Re-nominated in
1972, Nixon defeated Senator George S. McGovern in one of the
largest landslide victories in U.S. presidential history.
The Watergate Scandal dominated the President's second
term. By July 1974, grand juries had indicted several of the
President's closest aides, including two former cabinet officers, on
criminal charges. The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives voted three articles of impeachment against the
President. August 9, 1974 Richard Nixon became the first President
to resign from office.
Now a major leadership crisis again faces our nation. It is a
crisis of authority, but also a crisis of human nature. It is a crisis of
government, but also a crisis of physical desire and loneliness. It is
a crisis of legal principle, but it is also a crisis of egotism, vanity,
and simple human weakness.
William Jefferson Clinton entered the White House January
20, 1993 after withstanding charges early in the primary campaigns
of sexual impropriety. Like President Grant, Clinton was forty-six
years old when he took the oath of office. Like Grant, Harding and
Nixon, juries have convicted several of the President's friends.
Others are under investigation for crimes involving money and
elections. However, there the historical parallels end.
For while the Administrations of Grant and Harding were
shot through with greed and corruption, neither man ever confessed
to lying to the American people. While Richard Nixon was found
guilty of lying about his involvement in covering up the Watergate
break-in, his personal sexual morality was never an issue.
In the present crisis, however, the accusing finger points not
only to the Office of the Presidency, but to the personal morality of
the President himself. I do not wish to use this pulpit for
irresponsible rhetoric. I do not wish to judge the guilt or innocence
of anyone before they have had a chance to respond to charges.
Nevertheless, the independent counsel has charged the President of
the United States with serious crimes and misdemeanors. The
independent counsel claims the President:
- Lied under oath while he was a defendant in a sexual
harassment lawsuit;
- Lied under oath to a grand jury;
- Attempted to influence the testimony of a potential
witness who had direct knowledge of facts that
would reveal the falsity of his testimony;
- Attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a
witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena;
- Attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a
witness to file an affidavit that the President knew
would be false, and then by making use of that false
affidavit in his own testimony;
- Lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that
they would repeat those lies before the grand jury;
and
- Engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent
with his constitutional duty to execute the laws
faithfully.
Critics of the investigation have put forth many defenses for
the President.
- They have signaled out and blamed Kenneth Starr for
what has occurred. They have questioned his
impartiality and see the President as a victim of
Starr's anti-Clinton investigations. I believe this
perspective has merit.
- Some have characterized behaviors the President has
admitted as personal and trivial, and not worthy of
all the talk of impeachment and resignation. I
believe this perspective has merit.
- Supporters of the President say that none of us could
withstand the close examination the President had received. They
suggest that if $40,000,000 were spent investigating any of us, we
would have faults discovered that are as serious as the President. I
believe this perspective has merit.
- The President's defenders say that the good the
President has done far out weighs the transgressions
he has committed. The economy is strong, we are at
peace, crime is decreasing and the budget is balanced
for the first time in many years. I believe this
perspective has merit.
- The President's supporters suggested that many
Presidents and members of Congress, and for that
matter clergy have behaved as Clinton has. Holding
him to a standard to which we do not hold others, is
unfair. I believe this perspective has merit.
Nevertheless, in the end I do not find any of these arguments,
individually or together, adequate. In the end, no one held a gun to
Bill Clinton's head and forced him to engage in sexual activity in his
office with a young intern. No one held a gun to his head and forced
him to lie about these activities. I have not yet heard any argument
that excuses Bill Clinton from responsibility for his actions.
How do we decide if we should remove the President of the
United States from office? The answer is clear. The Founders
called it impeachment. They were aware that the President is not a
usual citizen, or a typical government administrator. Because of
their particular responsibilities and the unique way they are chosen,
the Founders decided that we should not expect Presidents to follow
the normal judicial process. Therefore they created, as part of the
checks and balance system, the system known as "impeachment."
It was part of their effort to create a powerful, yet accountable
President.
If the President will not resign, I believe it is appropriate that
the House vote to impeachment and the Senate conduct a trial. The
Founders gave us impeachment to us as the process by which we can
decide to remove a President from office. I believe the charges
against him make such a process necessary. I should be clear here.
By calling for an impeachment trial, I am not saying that I believe
the Senate should remove the President from office. I am saying
that the charges are so serious, the Senate should hold that a trial to
investigate the charges. The Senate must decide if this Presidency
should end.
It appears that the only thing that can stop an impeachment
trial would be the resignation of the President. This, I think, is the
best solution. Given what the President has already admitted, the
Vice President can more effectively lead the country. The result of
Clinton's lying about his marital infidelity is that many people no
longer trust him. I do not believe that he can restore this trust. His
moral authority in the country has been so undercut that he can no
longer effectively lead.
Prolonging this will lead to a crisis in leadership which will
only make it deeper and uglier. Even if the President wins a
protracted impeachment battle, such a battle will leave the country
in turmoil and the president's reputation in tatters. Resignation with
a pardon will give the nation an opportunity to put this behind us and
move on. Therefore, I believe Bill Clinton should enter into
negotiations with the leaders of Congress. I suggest that he offer to
resign the Presidency in exchange for a full pardon for himself and
his wife. (She had also been subject to investigation by Mr. Starr.)
Furthermore, it is not just the country that the President's
resignation would serve. I am concerned for Mr. Clinton and his
family. If stresses and the spotlight of the Presidency were no longer
his concern, I believe that he and his family would better off. The
President needs to focus his energies not on the nation but on
rebuilding his life and healing the pain between himself and his wife
and daughter.
In this regard we should remember that the Presidency is not
who Bill Clinton is: the Presidency is simply the work role he is
filling right now. This is something that all of us should remember.
To be healthy human beings, all of us need to cultivate a sense of
who we are that is separate from the work we do. To be healthy our
identity needs to be more then our work. When our work role ends,
we do not end. When I finish service as a minister, I will not cease
to lead a meaningful life. When you change jobs or retire, your
identity as a human being does not cease. When it comes to the
Presidency of the United States, Jimmy Carter is an example of a
man who has continued to live a rich and meaningful life after being
defeated for re-election.
Therefore, in suggesting that the President resign, I am not
suggesting that his life come to a halt. Resignation can lead to new
beginnings. The President is young. He has many talents. He can
apply these abilities to live a rich and fulfilling life for many years
to come.
However, I do not think he should escape the consequence
for his adultery with a young intern in his office or his lying. The
appropriate consequence is that he should no longer serve as
President of the United States. I hope that this drama will end with
a resignation and a pardon, not with a long trial in the Senate.
In the end, I cannot be too harsh in my judgment of Bill
Clinton. I know that my own innocence is more often the result of
a lack of opportunity, than it is moral superiority. So, recognizing
my own weakness, I try to pursue the goal of justice with
compassion. May the politicians learn from the world's great
religions. The best society is one where justice is tempered by love.
(The following is a response to the sermon reprinted with the
permission of the author, Jack Orwant)
Response to Sermon Jack Orwant
William Jefferson Clinton was elected to successive terms as
President of the United States. Only behavior which imperils the
constitution, the government, or our system of laws are, in my
opinion, the proper subject of impeachment, not sex acts between
knowledgeable consenting adults or the consequences there from.
It is instructive to note that the Starr inquiry might have been
thwarted some time ago had it not been for two technological
advances -- genetic identification and wiretap technology.
The President, of course, is not being called to account for
the commission of sex acts but for lying, etc., in an effort to cover
them up. How many men do you know who would readily 'fess up
in such circumstances? If the President is guilty of lying in the
course of the cover up, and there is presumptive evidence that he is
-- he has already been punished. He and his family have been
mortified by the publicity associated with the Starr investigations
which culminated in the now famous report. Millions are now
familiar with this document, especially the salacious parts (how
human we are!). His intimate behavior, like a worm pinned to a
piece of cardboard, has been exposed to the world.
I think the President has behaved immaturely and stupidly in
conducting an affair in the White House, if that is the case. People
are no doubt speculating about libidinous games in the Lincoln
bedroom. He has suffered the enormous price of public exposure.
Ratifying this punishment by Congressional censure would be
appropriate. Nullifying the mandate of the people, twice expressed,
by ouster from office would not only be excessively cruel to him but
damaging to the polity of the United States if the issues are non-compelling. It is also bad realpolitik.
Taking the President at his word, he will not resign, pious
injunctions to do so notwithstanding. Politicians -- and not just
Clinton -- can use words very flexibly, but I believe him on this
point. We will be faced with a strenuous impeachment process in the
House, and if the matter goes to the Senate, where a two-thirds
majority is required for ouster, a destructive mega-battle. The
business of the world's greatest power is the world's business, and
needs the fill and constant attention of both Congress and President.
Criticize, rebuke, censure, and be done with it, preferably without an
impeachment process.
The President is not the only possible culprit in this sorry
mess. Many people are uneasy about the possibility that the Office
of Independent Counsel (OIC) acted with excessive and possibly
malicious zeal in this case. Example: Linda Tripp wiretapped her
friend Monica Lewinsky with the knowledge, if not encouragement
of OIC attorneys. Maryland has a wiretap law, and I would like to
know if the OIC attorneys abetted its violation, should that prove to
be the case. I understand that the matter is being investigated by
Maryland authorities. My sense of deep foreboding about the
powers of the OIC has been enhanced by a number of Ken Starr
tactics, which have seemed, to my non-lawyerly eye, to be political
rather than prosecutorial.
My views are my own, by the way, whether or not they
accord with those of White House apologists.
| 
