Half way through the 42nd President of the United State’s tenure, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the 105th House of Representatives for his relationship with former White House aid, Monica Lewinsky; and for his false statements to the public on the extent of their relationship. The House was controlled by the Republican Party during this time and “
In an attempt to address this broad question of the Clinton Scandal’s influence I will address the history of impeachment briefly and attempt to interpret the constitution’s words and the precedents that have been set forth by previous cases of impeachment. I will then move to discuss the impact of this particular impeachment on the system of precedence which our nation relies upon, further examining how this precedent has the ability to dramatically change our definition of impeachment, forever leaving leaders in fear of impeachment for partisan differences. Once I have established the impacts of these events on the concrete aspects of our political system I will move to their impact on our political culture and thereby the impact on the parties themselves, particularly which party has the ability to claim the moral right, and thereby gather the Christian vote that holds a such significant sway in our nation. Finally my analysis will move into the realm of power, political or otherwise, and how the Clinton impeachment process altered the roles of the public, government, and press in relation to the use of political power before moving into how these changes have affected the political power structure of the United States since the Presidential Election of 2000.
President Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in front of a grand jury and attempting to obstruct justice by doing so. The question that the American people and the Congress dealt with in the late 1990s was what an impeachable offense was and what it was not. According to the constitution’s intentionally vague wording, these offenses are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. We cannot debate whether or not the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was legal, because the process was purely constitutional, but what we can debate is whether the charges against the President fell under impeachable offenses. In order to attack this question we must look to the starting point of President Clinton’s actions and whether or not the events that followed jeopardized our nation or its constitution.
These questions are not just of significance to our generation, but to every generation of Americans to come. If our nation stands the test of time this sequence of events will have an impact unequalled by any previous impeachment our nation has seen.
The Constitutionality of Impeachment
I will not go to the extent of copying all of the constitution’s provisions for impeachment here, but I will note those which I feel are most important for this discussion.
Article I
Section 2
(5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3
(6) The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
(Constitution of the United States of America)
The Constitution of the United States was written as and intended to be an incomplete document. The articles laid forth in it were written with the expressed purpose of allowing for change in interpretation as the need be, and to allow for any freedoms to coexist that the founders did not fathom at the time of the document’s creation. For this reason, among others, the Constitution of the
In our nation’s history only two Presidents have been impeached (President Nixon was never formally impeached before his resignation), and neither of them has been convicted by the Senate. In order for the President to be impeached, the House Judiciary Committee considers impeachment, then submits a recommendation to the entire House on whether or not to pursue an impeachment inquiry. The House Judiciary Committee then drafts an Articles of Impeachment listing the specific counts the President is charged with and these Articles, once passed in the committee, are submitted to the House. The House then debates and votes on the Articles, each being debated and voted on separately, needing only a straight majority to pass the Articles and begin a trial in the Senate. In the Senate, the House managers form the prosecution and a “super-majority” is needed for conviction on each Article, two-thirds of the body.
The first President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868 for intentionally breaking the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to change out the Secretary of War by removing a personal enemy, Edwin M. Stanton, from office. Johnson was formally impeached by the House of Representatives on February 24, 1868 and was brought to trial in the Senate beginning on March 13.
President Andrew Johnson was impeached for intentionally breaking the law in order to gain more political power with a new appointee to his Cabinet. This precedent falls under high crimes or misdemeanors against the state because he was breaking the law for personal gain while in office, if only in terms of the power that he could exercise as the President. His actions were brought to impeachment because he attempted to break the law outwardly, and he was saved from conviction by the Senate by only one vote (Van Tassel, Finkelman 11).
The Tenure of Office Act was passed on March 2, 1867 despite Johnson’s veto. The act forbid the President to dismiss an appointed cabinet member without the consent of the Senate. Johnson’s defense argued that the act did not apply to Johnson’s actions because Stanton was appointed by Lincoln during his first term, and was thereby simply a “hold-over” cabinet member. Johnson had attempted to get the Senate to ratify Stanton’s removal, but the effort was voted down on January 3, 1868. Despite the Senate’s veto, Johnson attempted to remove Stanton from office on February 21, 1868. Because of the vague language of the Tenure of Office Act, and the argument presented by the defense, it was decided that Johnson had not broken the law. The Tenure of Office act was later repealed in 1887.
This one and only precedent for impeachment outlines the concept that impeachable offenses are those which promote personal gain, particularly gain in power of the office of the President. There is also an equally important impression given by this precedent: there is only one. There had been only one President of the
Monica Lewinsky first began working at the White House in July of 1995 as an intern for the office of the Chief of Staff. She first met President Clinton toward the end of 1995 when they flirted, expressed mutual attraction, and then made plans for a “sexual rendezvous.” Their relationship lasted only a few months, ending when Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon because Deputy Chief of Staff, Evelyn Lieberman, thought that she was becoming a nuisance and was loitering around the oval office (Busby 52).
On September 9, 1998 after four and a half years of investigation and over forty million dollars (Busby 134), the Office of Independent Counsel headed by Kenneth W. Starr presented the Starr Report to the House of Representatives which outlined the offenses of President Clinton and listed eleven possible grounds for impeachment (Busby 128). This marked the first time that an independent counsel launched an investigation on a sitting President (Kalb 242). On October 5, 1998 the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend an impeachment inquiry to the House of Representatives. The House passed this recommendation three days later, and the Judiciary Committee debated and passed four articles for impeachment on December 12, 1998 (Busby 146). Three of the four Articles proposed by the Judiciary Committee were voted on according to strict partisan lines. The second Article had one dissenting Republican vote against it (Busby 151). The House of Representatives voted on the four Articles of Impeachment on December 19, 1998.
The Articles of Impeachment charges brought by the House to vote were as follows: 1) The President provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky; 2) The President provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition; 3) The President obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case; 4) The President misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. Only two of these Articles passed the House vote, Articles one and three as listed above, Article one by a 228 Yea to 206 Nay vote and Article three by a 221 Yea to 212 Nay vote. Both votes were not strictly along partisan lines.
In light of which Articles were passed, we must ask whether or not these charges are part of the high crimes and misdemeanors category. Both counts refer to the divulgence of information on a personal relationship between the President and an aide, and whether or not the concealment of this information obstructed the course of justice. Regardless of whether or not his actions were morally correct, the question that needed to be asked in terms of the constitutionality of
On January 7, 1999 President Clinton’s impeachment trial began in the Senate. The trial was presided by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The trial lasted just over one month, ending on February 12, 1999. Of note is that the Senate held a vote on January 27 to drop all charges against President Clinton, but the vote returned 56-44 to continue the proceedings. On February 12th President Clinton was acquitted of both charges, on the count of perjury the vote was Guilty: 45 Not Guilty: 55; on the count of obstructing justice the vote was Guilty: 50 Not Guilty: 50.
The impeachment process was designed during the creation of our nation’s constitution as an extension of the separation of powers that the founders felt was necessary to create a system that would not be ruled either by executive or judicial tyranny. Both of these branches of government, as well as the members of the legislative branch are subject to impeachment, and its intention is to secure the safety of the American people, the United States Constitution, and our form of democracy. The meaning of this paragraph is paramount to this discussion. When looking at the way that the Clinton impeachment has changed the American political system that we are a part of, we must substantiate that his impeachment was a dramatic first step away from the intentions of the founders of the nation and thereby the constitution.
When the constitution was written there were members of the constitutional convention that opposed including articles for impeachment “on the grounds that an impeachment process would make the President dependent on whichever branch of government was delegated the impeachment power,” (Van Tassel, Finkelman 17) which is exactly what Americans saw in the impeachment process of 1998. A Republican controlled House of Representatives moved to impeach a Democratic President who was keeping their party’s agenda from being met, without adequate legal grounds in terms of precedent of law, resulting in the President being prey to the rule of one specific body of government while only 35% of the people polled, on the day of impeachment by the House, supported the move for impeachment (Morris 45).
The supporters of the
“This is a mistake; the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” has nothing to do with criminal law. High crimes and misdemeanors are completely different from criminal offences in purpose, scope, consequence, and meaning. One telltale fact is that there is no such thing as a “high crime” in the criminal law. Though there are “crimes” and there are “misdemeanors” there are no “high crimes” or “high misdemeanors.”” (Coulter 259)
I have a few problems with Mrs. Coulter’s statements. I do agree with her premise on impeachable offenses being completely different from criminal offences in all of the ways stated; however, I feel that these words all apply to the two main premises I have set forward above as reason for impeachment, endangering the American people via national security, or empowering the Presidency in a way that usurps power from the other branches of our government. High crimes and misdemeanors as a phrase was undoubtedly a creation of the founders to include many offences that they could not foresee, but I find it hard to believe that fellatio was included in this “all inclusive” category as Mrs. Coulter would like to believe.
Conversely, Representative Zoe Lofgren stated that, “It’s very clear that impeachment was really meant to be a between-elections remedy for behavior that endangered the system of government on the part of the chief executive…It’s not to punish the chief executive, it’s to save the constitution. Criminal law…has nothing to do with this whole process” (Busby, 142).
The analysis of the Clinton impeachment must rely heavily on the power of the precedent that the process sets for future impeachments. The United States has a system of common law, which relies upon legal precedents for future decisions. The Clinton impeachment precedent sets forth the ability for a President to be impeached without an offence that deliberately and directly threatens the security of the nation, or the balance of power within the branches of government. “The Lewinsky scandal, by contrast (to Watergate and Iran/Contra), involved misleading comments by the President and did not entail the inappropriate employment of units of the Executive branch” (Busby 17).
The discussion of precedence was present throughout the Clinton scandal, and was not overlooked by either party. For instance, Republican Representative Bill McCollum stated, “If at the end of the day, I were to conclude that the President lied under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case with criminal intent and committed perjury, I would vote to impeach him because if we don’t do that, he will have broken the rule of law and undermined the rule of law and we would be setting a terrible precedent” (Busby 142). Despite my understanding of the need for some form of discipline, I agree with the Democratic position, impeachment was not the proper avenue. The Democratic minority in Congress supported an act of censure, which is an act of official reprimand with no legal consequences, but Republicans pointed to its absence in the constitution in order to rule out censure as an option for dealing with the scandal.
The impeachment process continued and therefore, from this time forth, under this precedent it will be possible to impeach a President on any grounds if the House of Representatives is controlled by a specific group that intends on stripping the President of his power, particularly for political reasons. This precedent is as dangerous as the articles of impeachment in the eyes of the founders, for it allows a group of partisans to usurp power from the people of the
Implications on American Political Culture
The impeachment process of 1998 not only manipulated the foundation of the United States Constitution, but also dramatically changed the political culture of the United States. From Clinton’s impeachment to the midterm elections of 2006 the Democratic Party did not hold control in any branch of government, and their election results were worse than expected, particularly in the Presidential election of 2004. The Clinton scandal affected the dynamic of morality in American politics by redefining which party could claim the moral high ground. President Clinton’s actions were morally wrong; he allowed or even persuaded an aide to perform fellatio on him while sitting at his desk, even while making government business calls to congress members (Posner 17).
The Clinton impeachment also redefined the politics of scandal itself. William J. Clinton faced numerous scandals during his tenure in various public offices. His reactions to these scandals, namely his “damage limitation team” (Busby 145), and the media coverage that they received shaped the way that Americans view political scandals, particularly those of private interest. “A combination of institutional factors, partisanship, media interest and the desire of some individuals to gain publicity helped to promote scandal as a mainstay of American political life” (Busby 15). For the first time the President was on trial for charges that “would never even be considered for prosecution in the routine cases involving an ordinary defendant” (Busby 148). The Clinton scandal was one of morality and personal judgment, not the abuse of power that is rightly associated with the process of impeachment.
The question that many scholars ask of the Clinton scandal is, “Why Clinton?” It has been known of Presidents throughout or nation’s history to be engaged in affairs while in office, “why was Clinton pursued with such vigor by the Independent Counsel and the Republican controlled Congress?” (Busby 17). The answer that many people would point to is the partisanship of our nation, and the Republican Party’s attempt to regain some power from the executive branch; while others assert that it was Congress’ duty to impeach a President guilty of perjury in front of both a grand jury and the American people. Whatever the reason for impeachment, the definitive scope of partisanship in the proceedings cannot go unobserved, and overwhelming partisanship’s impact upon the future of American politics can already be seen. The election results since the impeachment of President Clinton have highly favored the Republican Party until the midterm elections of 2006. While these results are rightly contributed to individual candidates and individual elections, the trend away from the Democratic Party cannot be ignored.
Morality and a political party’s ability to claim it is a crucial aspect of politics in our “one nation under God.” Since the days of the colonies, religion and Christianity in particular has played a decisive role in politics. From the Puritans and their witch trials, to early Evangelicals in New York State and their push for the abolition of slavery, to the current debate over gay marriage and abortion, religion’s influence on American politics is explicit. It can easily be seen that a moral scandal of Clinton’s magnitude can affect the nationwide opinion of not only his character but the character of his party. Lies and adulterous relations do not mesh with Christian, Jewish or Islamic faiths, which as a group comprise at least 80 percent of the citizens of the United States (CIA Factbook).
It can be argued that during the Presidential election of 1992, Clinton and the democrats held the moral high ground, if for no other reason that Barbara Bush’s public pro-choice stance (Larry King Live Weekend). However, in the Presidential election of 2000 it was obvious that George W. Bush was pushing his morality as a major platform plank.
“I have something else to ask you, to ask every American. I ask for you to pray for this great nation. I ask for your prayers for leaders from both parties. I thank you for your prayers for me and my family, and I ask you to pray for Vice President Gore and his family. I have faith that with God's help we as a nation will move forward together as one nation, indivisible.” (Governor George W. Bush Delivers Remarks)
“I understand that when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of this land, but to answer the calls of the mothers and dads who I see all the time around America, who come to my rallies and hold a picture of their child and look me in the eye and say, "Governor, I'm here to say, never let us down again," to hear those calls. I will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.” (Special Event)
“And finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who'll tell the truth. That's the best way to get people back in the system.” (Debate Between Presidential Candidates: Al Gore and George W. Bush)
The nation was looking for a moral candidate. Despite high approval polls during the impeachment process, devout citizens were looking for a morally responsible candidate. Al Gore fell short and George W. Bush picked up the slack.
The politics of scandal have been a major player in US national politics since the advance of television and internet technologies. Scandal has always been existent in politics, but not until the television revolution were ordinary citizens enthralled with all the details as moving pictures and corresponding sound enables.
“After two or three weeks the Senate Watergate hearings were the hottest thing on television. Here by God was a real soap opera: tragedy, treachery, weird humor and the constant suspense of never knowing who was lying and who was telling the truth…Which hardly mattered to the vast audience of political innocents who soon found themselves as hooked on the all-day hearings as they’d previously been on the soaps and quiz shows.” (Thomson 334)
Vietnam brought war into everyone’s living room. Watergate brought doubt in our electoral system and the faith we place in the President. The Clinton impeachment brought scandalous and titillating details of a private sexual relationship into our homes and onto our America Online “Welcome” pages when the Starr Report was released to the public on September 11, 1998 (Busby 132).
Power in the Contemporary American Political System
The impeachment of President Clinton redefined the power structure of American politics to a point. Evidence of this can be seen in Congress’s back seat approach to the executive branch since September 11, 2001. The Bush administration’s form of neo-conservatism continues the Reagan administrations views of America’s role in the world, “as a world enforcer of liberal morals,” and in order to achieve this goal it is necessary to have, “a strong foreign policy, either to fight Bolshevism, to encourage open markets, or to protect overseas interests” (Grandin 152). President Bush has relied on his definition of executive power to develop the strong foreign policy that his political movement desires, with little scrutiny from the Republican controlled Congress. From 2001 until 2007 the policies introduced by either the Congress or the President were given little examination due to the Republican Party controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government.
This unchecked use of power led the aggressive policies of the Republican Party to be put into law or practice, once the nation was gripped with fear after the events of September 11, 2001, including the Patriot Act and the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Most would argue that the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are direct results of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but how do these invasions relate to the new power dynamics of the American political system? Perhaps the best explanation of this dynamic change comes from the mouth of President George W. Bush. “I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation” (Ruppert 480).
In the months following the passage of the Patriot Act there was much discussion of its ramifications on the rights of American citizens, which then soon after being dropped from the news, was forgotten by most of the public. However, the provisions found within the Patriot Act, which are a direct result of the attacks of September 11th, include the destruction of numerous aspects of the bill of rights and the US Constitution as a whole. Namely the Patriot Act has restricted our,
“Freedom of Association: the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist in terror investigation.
Freedom of Information: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public record requests.
Freedom of Speech: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terrorism investigation.
Right to Legal Representation: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Freedom from Unreasonable Searches: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Right to a Speedy Trial: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Right to Liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.” (Ruppert 482)
After the passage of the Patriot Act, Congressman Paul stated, “Our forefathers would think it’s time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place…They revolted against much more mild oppression” (Ruppert 485).
The system of American politics and society has been dissolved in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, which Ruppert also argues could not have been possible without the consent of intimate members of President Bush’s cabinet, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney. But how does this tie into the Clinton scandal? Bush won the election of 2000 by running as a candidate outside the Washington system. He placed indirect blame on Gore for not condemning the actions of Clinton, “If [Gore]'s got any problem with what went on in the past, he ought to explain what it is…You're either part of an administration or you're not part of an administration, that's how I view it. And if Al Gore's got differences with the president, he ought to say them loud and clear what they are. He ought to let us know where he differed from the president on policy matters as well as everything else” (Inside Politics).
On the contrary George W. Bush was never an outsider in Washington, with the possible exception of being a New Englander who went to Yale, then bought a ranch in Texas and pretended to be a cowboy. George W. Bush is the son of the 41st President of the United States. His cabinet is stocked with members of both his father’s administration and members from the Reagan administration. His entire administration was completely familiar with the inner workings of the American system, and has successfully manipulated that system to create one of reduced freedom for citizens here and people worldwide. Yet what has been done about this trend, this control, and this true abuse of power?
What needs to be discussed is that which no one is talking about. Why has the Congress not moved to impeach the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush? This question is hinged on the discussion of the Clinton impeachment process. Why has the “independent” press been so reluctant to push for impeachment when 53% of the public, as a poll cited in the November 8, 2005 Harper’s Weekly Review, view impeachment as a viable option for ending the Bush administration’s continuous lack of clarity and transparency on the discrepancies of both the 9/11 attacks themselves and the following six years of foreign policy (Swanson). I believe there must be a certain level of either fear, or unwillingness to pursue impeachment again. The Clinton impeachment was a purely political action that the majority of American citizens did not support. The precedent set by that action shocked the American people, and now that we are in a situation where the President of the United States, and the party that he is a member of, has seriously overstepped the legal bounds of power in terms of the office of the president, we as a public do not know what to do. Impeachment was trivialized by the Clinton scandal, and now that severe abuses of power are explicit, the option is not palatable.
In the American system it is typical for analysts to consider constituents and their needs as the top priority of legislators. House members in particular must maintain good relations with their districts due to their biannual electoral periods. Morris states that for the most part, this dedication to constituents was not abandoned during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. “Most, although far from all, members behaved in a manner that was completely consistent with their constituents’ preferences” (Morris 14). His argument is essentially that regardless of partisanship or personal beliefs, the constituency still ranks highest in priorities for representatives, and therefore, “a host of members of Congress…failed their constituents,” when “in fact, the general position of Americans on Clinton’s impeachment was straightforward and unambiguous: They opposed it” (Morris 163).
Morris suggests that constituents’ opinions matter most, and those representatives that failed to realize that during the Clinton impeachment process had to fight to regain the support of their districts. In light of this, my question is why public opinion has once again been overlooked by the Congress? Is there a fear of action because of political power? Or has the Congress simply lived up to its traditionally low job approval ratings?
This dilemma brings up numerous questions about power in American politics. One of these questions revolves around the differences between two major types of scandal in politics, corruption and sex. Which of these holds more sway with public opinion, and which holds more sway in Congressional proceedings? In the last few years, scandals have emerged within the Republican majority relating to corruption with campaign funding, leaking confidential information to the press, and a developing scandal on politically charged dismissals of district attorneys. Arguably these recent scandals have brought about change and the demand for change within the American public, as can be seen with the results of the midterm elections of 2006. However, none of the current scandals have involved high ranking officials and have resulted in the creation of “fall guys.” "It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's [Karl] Rove...where are these other guys?’ stated Dennis Collins, juror in the I. Lewis Libby case (Juror: Libby is guilty, but he was fall guy).
The Clinton impeachment process also brought about change in the so called fourth branch of government: the media. As stated above news coverage has changed dramatically in the past thirty years, “both with the new technology and the new, looser economic underpinning have transformed the news business from one tied to public trust to one linked to titillation and profit” (Kalb 253). Kalb sums up the major changes in news media under four categories that were emphasized by the Clinton scandal and thus established as a new norm for news media: “Out There,” Rush to Judgment, Blurring the Lines, and Sourcing – or Lack Thereof.
“Out There” simply refers to the increased competition of the internet age and 24 hour cable news networks. Kalb argues that this environment removed the censor of major news media by forcing them to also cover any piece of “news” simply because their competitors were doing so. Rush to Judgment refers to the growing cynicism on the part of journalists to assume post Watergate that politicians were always lying to them, or at least not telling them the whole truth, resulting in a mounting distrust that bleeds into the diction of journalism. Blurring the Lines refers to the end result of the television revolution; journalists have become politicians in their own right by becoming recognizable celebrities themselves, destroying their ability to be “able to be objective” (Kalb 264). Kalb also develops the trend of journalism becoming an “attractive alternative to politics,” with many former public officials becoming correspondents or consultants for news media (Kalb 265). Finally Sourcing – or Lack Thereof is self-explanatory. Kalb denounces the increasingly prevalent dismissal of the previous standard of two credible sources for the publication of a story. Essentially Kalb’s other three tenets are all development for this final category.
In Conclusion
President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, and acquitted of charges brought against him by the Senate. His impeachment was a major development for American politics, and has dramatically affected the system of governance in the United States in many ways. When analyzing the repercussions of these events, it is necessary to avoid the partisan debate that surrounded the events themselves and look at the entire scope of the impeachment process as a whole. The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton weakened the system of precedence for the impeachment of a President.
Clinton was impeached for previously unimpeachable offenses. Additionally, the American public did not agree with the push for impeachment, and the Congress therefore acted in its own interest, or in the interest of the controlling party. The very nature of the scandal resulted in dramatic changes in terms of which political parties were attributed with specific aspects, namely morality and honesty. Resulting from these redefinitions, the United States was controlled by the Republican Party for the first six years following Clinton’s second term, and has only lost this control in a wave of scandal and failure in the field of foreign policy.
When analyzing this data and attempting to pontificate on the implications this series of events will have upon future generations of Americans, I attempted to place emphasis on the actions of George W. Bush as being a direct consequence of the scandal. Al Gore was discredited because of the impeachment scandal, even though George W. Bush never explicitly attacked President Clinton during the course of the election of 2000. Furthermore, the very fact that the Supreme Court decided the election of 2000 awarding the Presidency to the candidate who did not receive a plurality of the popular vote cements the notion that Al Gore was not considered to be a viable candidate by the most powerful branch of government, the judiciary.
The resulting six years of American politics has led to a complete redefinition of the United States of America in the view points of the rest of the world. From 2003 until the present the United States army has once again become an occupying force in a nation in the throws of civil war, which we cultivated by removing a brutal dictator, who none the less maintained order through tyranny. In order to minimize public backlash from these foreign policy initiatives the Republican controlled Congress initiated legislation that systematically removes numerous rights of American citizens contained in the Constitution, and has since renewed this legislation.
While the full breadth of ramifications of the Clinton impeachment have yet to occur, the amount of evidence for the dramatic redefinition of American politics as a result proves that the impeachment process was a political event unlike any other that American politics has seen, not only changing the lives of Americans through their system of governance, but extending to new definitions of warfare, accountability, and public discourse. What is in store for the future of American politics? Will partisanship increase until our implosion, or will our system once again be dramatically shifted?
Works Cited
Black, Charles L. Jr. Impeachment: A Handbook.
1974.
Brock, David. Blinded By The Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.
Crown Publishers, 2002.
Busby, Robert. Defending the American Presidency: Clinton and the Lewinsky Scandal.
CIA Factbook. 17 April 2007. Central Intelligence Agency. 19 April 2007.
<>
Conason, Joe and Lyons, Gene. The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign
to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Coulter, Ann H. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton.
Washinton: Regnery Publishing, 1998.
Debate Between Presidential Candidates: Al Gore and George W. Bush. 17 October
2000. National Public Radio. 12 April 2007.
<>
Governor George W. Bush Delivers Remarks. 13 December 2000. Cable News Network.
12 April 2007.
<>
Gradin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the
New Imperialism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2006.
Inside Politics. 11 August 2000. Cable News Network. 12 April 2007.
<>
Juror: Libby is guilty, but he was fall guy. 6 March 2007. Cable News Network. 12
April 2007.<>
Kalb, Marvin. One Scandalous Story:
Tarnished American Journalism.
Kaplan, Leonard V. ed. and Beverly I. Morgan ed. Aftermath: The
and the Presidency in the Age of Political Spectacle. Mark V. Tushnet. “The
Constitutional Politics of the
University Press, 2001.
Labovitz, John R. Presidential Impeachment.
Larry King Live Weekend. 28 January 2001. Cable News Network. 12 April 2007.
<>
McLoughlin, Merrill ed. Michael R. Beschloss intro. The Impeachment and Trial of
President Clinton: The Official Transcripts, from the House Judiciary Committee
Hearings to the Senate Trial.
Merkl, Peter H. A Coup Attempt in
Constitutional Crisis.
Morris, Irwin, L. Votes, Money, and the
2002.
Posner, Richard A. An Affair of State.
Rozell, Mark J. ed. And Wilcox,
American Government.
Ruppert, Michael C. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the
End of the Age of Oil. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2004.
Special Event. 3 November 2000. Cable News Network. 12 April 2007.
<>
Starr, Kenneth W. The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W.
Star on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair.
1998.
Swanson, David. New Poll: Majority of Americans Support Impeachment. 4 November
2005. After Downing Street. 12 April 2007.
< q="node/4421">
Thompson, Hunter S. The Great Shark Hunt: Gonzo Papers Vol.1 – Strange Tales from a
Strange Time. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1979.
Van Tassel, Emily Field and Paul Finkelman. Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary
History from 1787 to the Present.
No comments:
Post a Comment