-Caveat Lector- >From Int'l Herald Tribune "Recalling the congressional debate over the Gulf War resolution in January 1991, Mr. Lott said, ''I don't believe there was a single Democrat who voted for it.'' In reality, 10 Senate Democrats, including Vice President Al Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, and 86 House Democrats supported the resolution. Mr. Lott apparently forgot that in 1991, Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, meaning that the resolution could not have passed without Democratic votes. " Paris, Saturday, December 19, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Dan Balz Washington Post Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON - A decade of destructive partisanship, personal attack and win-at-all-cost politics has crystallized in Washington this week, and the question no one can begin to answer is where it will end. The extraordinary events of the last few days suggest that the simple civilities that once helped to lubricate the rough game of politics are being swept away. >From the unexpectedly harsh criticism by key Republican leaders of President Bill Clinton's decision to launch a military strike against Iraq on the eve of a House impeachment vote to the confession by the House speaker-designate, Bob Livingston, of marital indiscretions, any semblance of normality in the conduct of public life has evaporated. ''Last week, this city reminded people of Beirut in the 1980s,'' said Kenneth Duberstein, former chief of staff in the Reagan administration. ''It now reminds people of the napalm-bombed Vietnam: total scorched earth. It is very sad for this place.'' This descent into the swamps of conflict, suspicion and raw partisanship has been coming for years. As a former official in the Clinton administration put it late Thursday, ''If you rip away the civility from our politics, the country and our institutions pay a terrible price.'' That price is the growing disillusionment by the public toward political life in Washington and a coarsening of the system designed to resolve differences peacefully and honorably. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there appears to be no incentive to playing the game any other way. Each expression of distrust is repaid in kind. Judging from reactions, no one will be able to convince Republicans that the news about Mr. Livingston's private life was not instigated by Democratic opponents. Nor can many Democrats be convinced that the impeachment proceedings represent anything more than partisan payback for accumulated grievances. It is hard to say where it all started. Vietnam? Watergate? A succession of Senate confirmation battles - the most notable being those of the Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas - that turned into open warfare between the parties and between opposing cultures in the country? The resignation of the House speaker Jim Wright, Democrat of Texas? The election of Mr. Clinton? The Republican takeover of both houses in 1994? The elements of this style of politics are now familiar to an increasingly disconnected country: negative campaigns, the relentless exposure of the private lives of politicians, a political system corrupted by huge amounts of money, war-room politics, government by permanent campaign, accelerated news cycles and a destroy-your-opponent mentality. This conflict has intensified for several reasons. One is that the political landscape is so evenly balanced between the two parties right now. Neither Republicans nor Democrats can gain the upper hand, but each is determined to win it all in every election. Every skirmish becomes a significant battle. Another factor is that the parties too often have found that the politics of polarization win elections, whatever the cost to governing. At times, the two parties have allowed their extreme wings to dominate, at the expense of the middle. Civility has become a casualty. There is no question that the events of 1998 have rubbed raw the nerves of partisans on both sides and that the impeachment vote has added to the bitter feelings in both parties. The notion of impeachment as a solemn and sober process has disappeared in the welter of partisan argument. Mr. Clinton may feel like a victim as the House began the impeachment debate, but even those who have defended him and worked for him acknowledge privately that he bears considerable responsibility for where the country stands this week. His credibility, they say, has been damaged by his conduct. Is it any wonder, some say, that Republicans distrust his motives in attacking Iraq? ''The depth of the damage he's caused himself and the extent to which his relations with Congress have been strained all came together,'' said a Democrat who asked not to be identified. But privately, many Republicans despair at how members of their own congressional leadership responded to the attack. The decision by the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, to issue a statement opposing the action baffled and angered party members. It was left Thursday to the outgoing speaker, Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, long known for his combative, partisan instincts, to attempt to show his fellow Republicans a model of opposition leadership. Mr. Gingrich went to the well of the House to deliver an eloquent statement of America's responsibilities to the world and a pointed reminder to his colleagues of the president's unique role in that leadership. ''Let me be very clear,'' Mr. Gingrich said. ''I believe the United States has to lead, and the president of the United States has to provide that leadership every day, 365 days a year.'' He was not the only Republican to endorse the president's decision, if not all aspects of the administration's policy toward Iraq. Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana, John McCain of Arizona and other Republicans offered unequivocal support. ''It wasn't a matter of trust or lack of trust in the president of the United States,'' Mr. McCain said in an interview. ''It was the overwhelming evidence that these strikes were warranted because of Saddam Hussein's transgressions.'' But the statements by Mr. Lott, the House majority leader, Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, and others questioning the Iraqi action continued to raise eyebrows. Mr. Lott attempted to explain his statement during a television interview, but did little to erase the impression of a Senate leader who sees the world in starkly partisan terms. Recalling the congressional debate over the Gulf War resolution in January 1991, Mr. Lott said, ''I don't believe there was a single Democrat who voted for it.'' In reality, 10 Senate Democrats, including Vice President Al Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, and 86 House Democrats supported the resolution. Mr. Lott apparently forgot that in 1991, Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, meaning that the resolution could not have passed without Democratic votes. If the argument over Mr. Clinton and Iraq strained relations, the revelations about Mr. Livingston inflamed them even more - though no one had any immediate evidence of how the information had come to light. First it was Representative Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who was forced to acknowledge a past sexual affair. Now the incoming speaker of the House - on the eve of the impeachment vote. In the current atmosphere, there will be no benefits-of-the-doubt offered, no stepping back, no quarter given. The impeachment debate will run its course, whatever the outcome, and then everyone will have to assess the damage. The country has been here before. Vituperative politics, personal accusations and roiling partisanship are well documented in American history. The question is whether the genie can be put back in the bottle, and no one has the answer. The first test will come when the impeachment issue has been resolved and attention turns to the 2000 elections. Few campaigns have been waged for higher stakes, with the House, Senate and presidency all up for grabs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ A<>E<>R The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
