In Washington, D. C., "bipartisan" is the buzzword of the day. We hear perennial pleading for bipartisan solutions to every issue from tax cuts to presidential censure. Voices cry out for peace and agreement--at any cost. On the surface, this call appears a Christian, reasonable alternative to differences, and it can often be both desirable and appropriate. But when it comes to basic freedom and the security of our country, the Senate had better think long and hard before selling out a successful system.
Bipartisanship is the means for agreement on an issue between members of a two-party system such as exists in America. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, then there remain two parties representing opposing points of view. But if the two sides come to agreement, do we still have a two-party system? At the point of agreement, we would, for practical purposes, no longer have two party opinions on that particular issue. That is the goal of those who seek bipartisan solutions at all costs. And guess whose solution it would be?
No one denies that agreement on mundane issues is a desirable and necessary thing. But agreeing to sell out on moral or security issues is another matter. For example, whether you and your spouse have spaghetti or fried chicken for supper is not a compelling issue; whether one of you decides your vow of fidelity is no longer important is. The injured party would likely consider infidelity an intractable point of disagreement. Using politics as the example, whether the government rules to regulate sugar quotas fairly is a mundane issue suitable for bipartisan consideration. But whether a government should allow the exportation of crucial military secrets or technology to an enemy affects the security of every citizen and would be a heinous compromise, for there are some issues so crucial to America's safety and moral values that no compromise is possible.
The two-party system has served our country well for over 200 years. It assures that more than one voice will be heard on important issues. A democracy cannot exist without multiple voices; a one-party or one-voice system is quite simply a dictatorship. In fact, if only one opinion is allowable, then a dictatorship is either overtly or covertly in place, and there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. Few would deny that two opposing forces--good and evil--are represented in men's affairs and that government exists to control the very real tendency of the powerful few to impose their will on the weak. If our republic is to continue, we must face these realities honestly and squarely.
The United States was recently in the throes of controversy concerning the rule of law. Powerful forces declared that honesty and justice were not worth discourse or adjudication and that this country could safely espouse the machinations of Machiavelli, who believed that any means could rightly justify a politician's ends. Some in government today believe that any opposing thought must be ridiculed or struck down. But time has proven that honesty can stand the light of day while dishonesty and machinations must be cloaked in secrecy and lies. The American people must be diligent in searching for truth. We cannot afford to think only of individual interests. We must never forget that many great, seemingly indestructible empires of the past fell in the midst of prosperity because they would not see the truth or look ahead to see the results of corruption.
There were some in the Senate who said we could not unseat the president because it would overturn the will of the people. This is an utterly false statement. The possibility of presidential removal is an important part of the Constitution; otherwise, that controversy would not have existed in the first place. What is the will of the people? Who really knows? Liberals cried, "Look at the results of the polls." But which poll should we have believed? Who can place credence in polls that are conducted with no rules or regulations. We didn't even know what questions were asked or how they were phrased. Were the polls taken only among a certain category of citizens? Were the questions biased? Polls cannot be reliable when there are so many unanswered questions. The only way to truly ascertain the feelings of the American people would be to take a vote, but even that recourse would not have determined the facts of the case and would have been outside the Constitution as well.
There is a second and even more subtle reason why some insisted that Clinton could not be removed. They had an agenda of their own, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the rule of law. When certain senators called for a bipartisan vote, they should have substituted the word "dictatorship," for that is exactly what we have when this President or any other is allowed to break the laws of our land and continue to sit in the highest seat of the nation.
Some senators are so brazen as to suggest that removal of the President would be unconstitutional. This is a bald-faced lie, and before the American citizen falls into this trap again, he or she should ask two very important questions:
1. Why did the Founding Fathers write an impeachment process into the Constitution at all if they never considered the possibility of overturning a "popular" election? How else is a president of the United States elected but by popular vote as represented in the Electoral College? There is no other way. Yet the Founders included an impeachment process in the Constitution--to be conducted specifically by the Congress. Obviously, they intended the impeachment and removal process to apply specifically to one who was already holding an important public office.
2. Did a single person ever argue that a president could not be removed from office when Nixon was facing impeachment? (Could this be a clue as to which foot the partisan shoe really fits?)
In the words of Meg Greenfield, (Newsweek), "There's nothing so dangerous for manipulators as people who think for themselves." Let's hope that Americans wake up before it is too late.