Path of destruction

What now for Clinton?

Bill Clinton and Ken Starr seem determined to bring the US government to its knees.

Throughout the expanding White House crisis, Clinton has at every turn chosen the path of greatest arrogance. When confronted with the Paula Jones lawsuit, he refused to issue the public apology that would have settled the matter. When it came time to testify in the Jones trial about Monica Lewinsky, the president declined to tell the truth. When evidence that there had indeed been an affair with Lewinsky surfaced last January, he stood before the nation and lied. And when he testified before Starr's grand jury, he evaded again, insisting that he had not had sexual relations with the 22-year-old intern.

At each step, he made the same decision: instead of accepting responsibility, he lied and raised the stakes. In the process, he has recklessly transformed a private matter into a weighty public one.

Starr, meanwhile, has managed to prove beyond any doubt that the independent- counsel statute is a recipe for constitutional meltdown. The report he delivered last week was an abuse of the mandate Congress intended to give independent prosecutors. Clearly, he had a duty to report evidence of impeachable offenses. But there was simply no reason -- beyond the desire to embarrass and do political damage to Clinton -- for the sheer weight of the lurid details. Where is the legal relevance of the Altoids episode? Of what legal significance is it whether the president ejaculated on a given occasion?

There is no doubt that Clinton's behavior was disgusting. But to have an affair -- and to try to hide it with lies -- does not justify an impeachment. We have not seen evidence of a serious abuse of the powers of his office. On the most serious charges -- that, for example, the Clinton White House consulted confidential FBI files on prominent Republicans -- Starr has had nothing to say. (Even on Whitewater, where it all began, there has so far been silence.)

Some observers suggest that the president should resign. But we do not believe that time has come. For the president to leave office would be hugely traumatic. It would also set a very bad precedent, substantially increasing the power of the legislative branch over the executive. It would, in effect, encourage future congresses to harass future presidents out of office. Remember that this country was not set up on a parliamentary system. It is not an accident that the chief executive cannot be dismissed for being unpopular with Congress (or with the people -- a majority of whom, for that matter, still think he should remain in office).

The only hope now is for Clinton to abandon his ruinous course. He should begin by telling his lawyers to be quiet. While a perjury charge would not stand in court, their message -- that there was no perjury, when every American knows he lied -- is a legal distinction that will only infuriate the public and erode what remains of its trust. Clinton should pledge to cooperate fully with any congressional inquiry, and to answer those questions in plain language. Congress, meanwhile, would best serve the country by avoiding the grueling impeachment process and instead agreeing on some kind of public censure -- above all else, for lying to the public -- that would put this behind us quickly.

The situation for Clinton could yet grow worse. On the legal front, Starr could find evidence of more-serious wrongdoing. And on the political front, the midterm elections could make the political environment even more acid.

The greater danger, though, is to the country: that two stubborn, arrogant men will, in otherwise prosperous times, take us down the path of destruction.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.