WHY INDICTMENT?

Victor Bloom MD

A new twist has been added to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal by Mr. Starr,

and that is the indictment of a sitting president. The Republicans have

been held at bay by an apparent majority of polled citizens who do not want the president removed from office. But the independent counsel is

convinced that the president has broken laws and should not go unpunished. Therefore, he can be prosecuted, like any other citizen of the United States. Of course, the Clinton defenders, including the women's movement, do not want him treated like any other citizen. Since he is the president, he is somehow given credit for the strong economy, and the unconscious, symbolic fear is that if he is removed from office, the economy will collapse and Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Economic experts do not think that given the depth, complexity and strength of the economy, the presence or absence of one man, even the president of the only remaining superpower, will make any difference. If the president is removed, Bill Gates is not going to file bankruptcy or stop making software. Automobile assembly lines will continue to mass produce vehicles and munitions factories will go on mass-producing weapons for wars around the globe. Commercial jets will take off and land and traffic jams will be bumper-to bumper as usual. The World Wide Web will continue to expand and grow, the post office will still deliver the mail and the banks will charge more for their services.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that Clinton could simply

be indicted. The importance of this fact was made known to me by an expert in constitutional law. He said with some authority that if Clinton is indicted, the American people do not have to pay his legal expenses. In effect, William Jefferson Clinton brought these expenses on himself by not taking the Fifth Amendment or telling the whole truth while under oath. If he had simply told the whole truth or refused to testify, these tremendous legal expenses¯ would not have been created. Much has been said about the forty or fifty million spent by the independent counsel since Whitewater, but no mention is made about the corresponding White House legal expenses, which would be paid for by the American people if he is not indicted.

Bill Clinton has been successful at raising large sums of money, originally

for his campaign chest and now for his legal defense. His campaign

strategy was to raise more money than the Republicans, for the first time, having figured out that the race, like those for high school president, is largely a popularity contest. And similar to such a popularity contest, the success goes to the handsome, charismatic, sexy candidate. No more Calvin Coolidges and Herbert Hoovers. Nowadays the chant about illicit sex is "go for it."

Kenneth Starr is not about to be thrown off track by a majority who condone lying under oath, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Just as the Democrats say it is an abuse of the constitution to unseat a sitting

president, the Republicans say it is an abuse of the constitution not to

prosecute a law-breaking president. The constitution was created in such a way that there is a balance of powers, so that the executive never has too much of it. The founders had in mind the powers of royalty, and they specifically did not want a president to have kingly powers, to be above the law. So each side interprets our constitution along the lines of their own bias. The Democrats want to keep Clinton in and the Republicans want Clinton out.

It is hard for many people to see the process of prosecution toward

indictment as not being simply partisan, hateful mean-spirited and destructive. Only a "conspiracy" of dyed-in-the-wool, Republican, gray-haired old men would be trying to" bring down a clever, sexy and charismatic president. Some of these people presume a certain Freudian sophistication when they declare that

the 'old men' are envious of the young (presumably alpha-male) president. The Republican prosecutors are pictured as gaining secret satisfaction from sexual details. Undoubtedly, these 'spins' are determined and sent off from the White House. It is the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, who are depicted as hypocritical.

We know that both sides are hypocritical and that the bottom line is money and power. Which party is to steer the nation's course in the new millennium? If it is the Democrats, the party of the minorities, the poor, the disenfranchised, the neglected, taxes will be raised and entitlements

increased. Money will be taken from the‡ rich and given to the poor. And

it will be called, 'fair'. That would be called, 'justice'.

If the Republicans are to maintain their power, there will be a limit to

taxes and entitlements. The rationale of the Republicans is that bigger

business and bigger profits and more salaries for the gainfully employed is what really helps the poor. They know it is better to teach fishing than to simply give a fish to a hungry person.

What is good for the rich is good for the poor in this day and age. It is wrong to keep harkening back to a century ago when the workers were truly exploited and their suffering ignored by fat-cat zillionaires. The best thing we have working for us is capitalism and free-enterprise, and they work better without excess governmental controls.

Indictment is a way to stick to basic principles. Our country was founded on principles which include a separation and balance of powers. Our constitution is being exercised, not exploited or mis-used.

vbloom@comcast.net.