Our Long Holiday from History is Over - 19 February 1999

It is the morning after, when the hung-over gentleman shakes his head like a puppy throwing off fleas, takes the shot of bicarbonate of soda and looks back on the dreadful experience. And his friends and family moralise.

In other words this is sermon time. Everybody who ever said a public word about the affair, from politicians of every stripe, clergymen of every denomination, commentators of every age and medium, men and women in the street, in the desert, in mountain villages, roaring city squares.

Now that it's all over why do we have to hear, all over again, from everybody who had talked so often while it was going on? Because of television. Because television, like Mount Everest, is there.

I propose quickly and simply to list the themes of these sermons, what might have been their titles and then we'll guess at the likelihood of the truth of any of them and there, if you don't mind, an end.

If you could scan or surf all or most of the people who sounded off, here are most of the judgements you'd read or hear about.

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT. BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MISHEARING, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS COMPLETE ACCURACY.

That the Constitution was the winner. That there were no winners. That the grounds on which the impeachment articles were voted will make it all the easier in the future to impeach a president. That the presidency has come out strengthened. That the presidency has been seriously weakened.

That the authority of the Senate was strengthened by the seriousness with which they finally debated away from the cameras behind closed doors. That the House prosecutors never made the case for "high crimes and misdemeanours". That the whole show further weakened the already feeble public confidence in Congress.

That the popular judgement was upheld - that, though the president lied under oath many times, his behaviour did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanours". That if 75% of the people think his behaviour was immoral and appalling but still wanted him to stay it only goes to show that they're as bad as he is and the nation is in moral decline.

There are thoughtful people of every type and place who think one or more of these things.

Now you may have noticed that several, if not most, of these judgements imply a prophesy. Because of this trial this is what's going to happen - more risk of impeachment trials, less trust in Congress etc. etc. However, within half an hour of the chief justice tapping his gavel and saying: "The impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton stands adjourned" we had swift and punishing proof that the gift of prophesy is one denied to human beings.

For weeks, for months in fact, ever since an actual impeachment trial seemed likely, that's before the House had voted the two damning articles, the Democrats got busy floating a very conspicuous trial balloon which they hoped would fly and actually persuade the Senate to forego an impeachment trial altogether. It was the trial balloon of a motion of censure.

The Democrats stood solid from the start saying: "You'll never find him guilty of high crimes."

In this the Democrats were not wiser or more far-seeing than the Republicans, they just saw and stressed with irritating frequency that a guilty verdict was impossible, that in the Senate trial they would require a two thirds majority and there was no way the Republicans could ever get that without 12 Democrats going over.

So, a couple of months ago, three or four Democrats got together and started drafting the language of a censure motion and later on, of course, brought in some Republicans including Senator Lott, the Republican leader in the Senate. Obviously to get a censure motion passed the language would have to be agreeable to the Republicans as well.

By the way, from the first session of the House to study the possibility of impeachment to the last days of the Senate's vote, what most depressed some of us looking on was the total unwavering partisanship of both sides while all the time each party kept congratulating itself on its high sense of non- or bi-partisanship. For the longest time it seemed not one Republican, not one Democrat, had the independence, the moral guts, to desert his party.

In the end, did you notice, 10 Republicans found the perjury charge not good enough and voted with the Democrats. And on obstruction of justice, five Republicans went over and joined the Democrats in saying "Not guilty".

It was the Republicans who were supposed to be the locked tight, hide-bound partisans, united by prejudice and hate but in the end not a single Democrat spoke up for himself. All they, like sheep, went trotting into the fold.

Well now: censure. As I say during many weeks, night and day, small knots of Democrats and Republicans have met and composed language - "immoral", "degrading", "unworthy", "unacceptable", "loathsome" on and on. And by the time the Senate was coming to the last days no censure motion had been composed that satisfied both sides. But one Senator, a Democrat - the often valiant Senator Dianne Feinstein from California - had a censure motion all prepared to offer after acquittal to prove to the world that the Democrats did not condone the president's behaviour.

So, the chief justice taps his gavel, he is escorted out - it's all over. But wait - the cameras go hurtling back to the Senate - another gavel sounds: "The Senate will come to order" - so it does. And up rises the beautiful and gallant Senator Feinstein.

There are to be two votes - one a procedural vote to admit consideration of a motion of censure of the said William Jefferson Clinton and when that's passed the motion itself to be read aloud, debated and voted on. And how long would that take? asked a random reporter of a veteran Senator.

"Ooh could take a day, a week, a month, who knows?"

So Senator Feinstein proposes the consideration of censure. The vote is taken electronically - it took seven minutes, was hopelessly outvoted - they're not even going to discuss it. End of three months - rumour, labour, negotiation, prophesy.

Somebody got to Senator Lott, the Republican leader.

"Well," he said, glancing at his watch, "it's outside the Constitution and anyway time's giving out."

As if this motion had been one of those casual, trivial motions offered at the end of every session: "That this House deplores the rumour that Elvis Presley is still alive."

The line that struck me about as casually as a bolt of lightning was Senator Lott's "it's outside the Constitution". Of course, but it always was.

Once again, I have to say, that the crucial phrase in the Constitution that tells you how far you can go by way of punishment once you've voted the impeachment verdict - to the end nobody quoted it.

The last word in the Constitution on impeachment is this: "Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office."

What could be more brutally plain? Vote him free or remove him but don't then fiddle around, add some other charge, dream up motions of censure or something by way of ameliorating the tough judgement.

Anyway it does finally seem to be over. Which means, however, that, as George Will puts it, "our long holiday from history is over". And most of the people in the Senate and the House seem to know it. They're already drawing up responses to the president's beautiful painting of a government-paid utopia that he unveiled in his State of the Union address.

His promise that the outlay of a few billion dollars in a year or two and America will have the best public educational system in the world was brought quickly to earth by his own man in New York, the formidable Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, saying: "Never mind being the best, how about getting to be fairly good?"

Instead of 18th in maths, 15th in history, 12th in general science the Senator said that, with hard work all round and the raising of elementary and high school standards of teaching, the United States might expect to show a radical improvement in its public education in about three generations.

Apart from getting back to the business of government there's a public issue that's been swept under the rug but is not going to stay there and could inflame labour relations in this country. The pilots of a leading airline - the second largest in the country - downed the joysticks and stayed home in protest against the company's absorbing a small airline that does connecting flights and hiring pilots at half the salary of the regular pilots.

The scary point is that the pilots didn't strike. They called in sick which meant they didn't work but they still got paid. They stayed out four days and the company lost $70m-odd.

A federal judge ordered them back to work. Two thirds refused. Another judge came in and fined the pilots' union $10m. So all the rest went slinking back to work and the media forgot about it as if the whole issue was solved.

It isn't. The pilots are working but fuming at their company and the mighty powerful labour union has discovered a new technique - the general sick call. No strike. Many pilots are talking about the union's refusing to pay any fine imposed by the courts.

This technique, if picked up by other national industrial unions, could cause unguessed-of mischief between the public and organised labour. Two forces which, for 15, 20 years or more, have been so strangely passive.

"Pilots refusing to serve under any circumstances? They can't do that," is a popular reaction.

It recalls the Boston police strike of 1919 which brought chaos to the government and the streets of the famous old city and much of New England. The governor of Massachusetts was as horrified as the people.

He said: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime."

And people hoped, so desperately, that this would come true that they had that governor, one Calvin Coolidge, run for president - and elected him.

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A RECORDING OF THE ORIGINAL BBC BROADCAST (© BBC) AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT. BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MISHEARING, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS COMPLETE ACCURACY.

Letter from America audio recordings of broadcasts ©BBC. Letter from America scripts © Cooke Americas, RLLP. All rights reserved.