The right moment

National Review, Sept 1, 1998 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

NEW YORK, JULY 31

What is certain is that on August 17 it will be officially confirmed that Mr. Clinton has lied, from which it follows that the entire infrastructure of presidential credibility is gone. Between now and then there will be a wistful suggestion here or there that the meeting between the defendant and the prosecutor will vindicate Mr. Clinton. But in order to believe that, it is necessary to believe that Kenneth Starr is really and truly out of his mind, which he would have to be to bring on the most theatrical confrontation in history with an unloaded pistol. The only line suggested for Mr. Clinton, in one sophisticated circle, is: "Yes, it's true I lied. But that is what gentlemen do when a woman is involved." Come to think of it, it would take someone of Clinton's stature as a liar to pursue that line. ("Now that it is known that there was this irregularity, I don't feel under any continuing obligation to shield Miss Lewinsky.")

But what has to happen between now and then is a geological alteration in political alignments. The President is in the nature of things the leader of his party. But the need to acknowledge presidential political authority ends when personal political survival is at issue. It isn't only a question, for ranking Establishment Democrats, of prevailing in their campaigns. It becomes a question of the right kind of pride: the quiet authority that, at critical moments in one's moral lifetime, one wants to safeguard.

The easy way, and most will take it, is to do nothing. Prominent Democrats can lean on the subterfuge that one doesn't know the whole story and mustn't therefore act recklessly or with disregard of procedure. What is open is both a challenge and an opportunity to do better than that -- by one's conscience, and for the public good.

In March of 1974, Senator James Buckley concluded that the mire that had overcome President Richard Nixon had resulted in the immobilization of the Presidency. He addressed Mr. Nixon, counseling his resignation from office. Some time after, reflecting with a touch of rueful amusement on the political storm that followed this defection from orthodox Republican policy, he said that mail received in his office was addressed to him either as Judas, or as Benedict Arnold. Two large baskets, for clerical convenience, were thus designated. Not very long after, a committee of inquiry recommended impeachment to the House of Representatives, and a few weeks after that, Mr. Nixon took my brother's advice.

There is an analogous opening here for a Democratic figure who seeks to distance the Democratic Party from the awful mess in which the President has put it. Some gropings in that direction have been made. It was pre-Lewinsky that Leon Panetta, who had served as chief of staff at the White House, said plaintively that the time had come for Mr. Clinton to speak out -- on the Paula Jones matter. In mid-week after the August 17 tocsin sounded, three loyalists on a single television program confessed, however muted their formulations, their misgivings. George Stephanopoulos, for so long so ardent on the subject of Mr. Clinton, spoke a deadly line. "He should do what he should have done six months ago -- come forward now to tell the truth, take responsibility." What he did not say, or reflect publicly on, was what are the consequences of the truth, if it is not what Mr. Clinton averred it to be in January, both in a press conference and in a legal deposition.

It is, to repeat, both a responsibility and an opportunity for a Democratic leader. Representative Richard Gephardt is strikingly equipped, both to address the Democratic Establishment, and to seek to protect it. Mr. Gephardt is an all but declared candidate for President of the United States. This means he will have to compete for the nomination with the heir apparent, Albert Gore. He has a brilliant opportunity to serve himself and his country: by calling on President Clinton to resign from office.

No doubt he would prefer to contend against Candidate Gore, retiring Vice President, than against President Gore, serving out the remainder of President Clinton's term. But the Democratic nomination in the year 2000 could be worthless, if the public sees no important voice within the party that was willing to answer the call to duty and honor.