Leading Article: Resignation could save Clinton's and a nation's honour
Friday 11 September 1998
Even if Mr Clinton did not like the new rules of the political game, he cannot argue that he did not know what they were. His behaviour has been quite perverse and self-destructive. To embark on an affair with an intern in the run-up to the 1996 election, and at a time when his private life was already under scrutiny in a sexual harassment case, almost beggars belief.
It does not matter that adultery is not grounds for impeachment. Mr Clinton is in trouble because he lied to the American people ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Ms Lewinsky") and because, as the Starr report is bound to set out in some detail, he committed perjury in his evidence for the Paula Jones case.
We can expect endless argument over the next few days and probably months over whether this and any other evidence of attempted obstruction of justice amounts in any way to the "high crimes and misdemeanours" encompassed in the US constitution as the grounds for impeachment. It seems unlikely that the framers of that great document intended it to do so, but in practice the phrase means whatever Congress wants it to mean.
That is as it should be. The benefit of the impeachment mechanism is that it provides a democratic safeguard - it is not as easy to impeach a president as it is to sack a prime minister, but it is easier than getting rid of a hereditary monarch. It also seems much easier now than it was before Richard Nixon's resignation. If Mr Clinton loses the confidence of the overwhelming majority of the American people, and their representatives, he will be impeached. It would not be particularly fair: Nixon's crimes against democracy were far more heinous, and in terms of public policy, Ronald Reagan's dealings in the Iran-contra affair were much more reprehensible. And he got off scot-free. But Mr Clinton will have brought it upon himself. In that sense, impeachment is real democracy in action.
Regardless of the impeachment process, however, the President is now not a lame duck but a dead duck. He is a tittering-stock not just in America but around the world. We cannot watch him on television without our eyes being drawn unwillingly to his mid-section. American teachers cannot teach the rule of law without sniggers at the back of the class.
The heart of the matter is personal: the President's personal judgement and his lack of shame. This is where the personal and the political overlap. The outcome should be decided not by the constitutional and legal machinery of impeachment but by Mr Clinton's personal honour: he should consider whether his resignation would be in the interests of the Presidency, the nation and the world.
BBC Trust agrees to axe channel from TV in favour of digital moveTV
FestivalsFive ways to avoid the portable toilets
Jurassic WorldThe results are completely brilliant
Arts & Ents blogs
- 1 Kim Jong-un shows off airport designed by architect he likely had executed
- 2 Tunisia hotel attack: Locals form 'human shield' to protect hotel from gunman Seifeddine Rezgui
- 3 German ethics council calls for incest between siblings to be legalised by Government
- 4 Fifty Shades of Grey author E.L James's Twitter Q&A didn't go exactly as planned
- 5 Facebook rainbow profile pictures likely being tracked by social network
Orange Is The New Black season 3 episode 1, review: The Ross and Rachel-ness of Piper and Alex is starting to grate
The picture of a man crowd surfing in a wheelchair at Glastonbury is brilliant, but it wasn't taken at Glastonbury
Fifty Shades of Grey author E.L James's Twitter Q&A didn't go exactly as planned
Guillaume Tell, Royal Opera House, review: Gang rape and stripping naked of female actor met with boos
Glastonbury 2015: Shocking scenes of rubbish left strewn across campsite as clean-up begins
The moment a Queen's Guard soldier lost it and drew his gun at annoying tourist
Greece crisis: The wider lesson is that it’s time to abandon this failed experiment in currencies
'I wish the BBC would stop calling it Islamic State' – David Cameron unleashes frustration at broadcaster
Pentagon accuses Russia of 'playing with fire' over nuclear threats towards Nato
They are neither a 'state' nor 'Islamic': Why we shouldn't call them Isis, Isil or IS
Tunisia beach attack: How can British Muslims respond to the latest outrages?