Obama's lessons from Bill Clinton's impeachment

Recently, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested obliquely that President Obama might risk facing impeachment for failing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

A few days later, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., took it a step further and said he would support Obama's impeachment if "collective support" for such a move developed. A legal analysis of the practical aftermath of Bill Clinton¹s impeachment suggests such a groundswell of support is unlikely.

As one who has firsthand experience in a presidential impeachment (I served as one of the prosecutors in President Clinton's Senate impeachment trial), I couldn't help but take notice of these rumblings. I doubt that such impeachment talk rattles President Obama. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton¹s successors end up as something of fans of our 1990s impeachment effort.

Check out James E. Rogan's complete and accurate historical chronicle of what really happened behind the scenes of the Clinton impeachment trial

No, I'm not suggesting that Obama supported Clinton's impeachment. In fact, I¹ll assume he didn't ­ even without researching the question. Besides, since almost everybody else in America opposed it, why should he be any different? However, I¹m pretty sure all of Clinton¹s successors will have learned a governance theory from it.

TRENDING: Ben Carson stands for Trump, blasts impeachment, censorship, swamp-creature GOP in bold interview

Consider this example: During Obama's first two years in office, he dove headfirst into an array of politically controversial policy initiatives that sent his once sky-high approval ratings plummeting; his apparent reaction to the potential fallout was little more than a shoulder shrug. In 2008, Obama put together perhaps the most sophisticated political operation in American history, and then seized the White House while enjoying astronomical poll numbers. Yet, seemingly before unpacking his bags, Obama risked his favorability ratings with a bobsled ride through the minefields of bailouts, health care and other explosive issues. This left pundits scratching their heads and asking, "Why?" Did the mastermind of Campaign 2008 morph overnight into a political dullard? If not, then what is the explanation?

The Clinton impeachment experience left us a new paradigm. The old model (politicians identifying policy ideas with elevated approval ratings and then standing next to them) now is sidelined by a more muscular approach. If the Clintonian response to impeachment is any predictor for success, we might expect to see variations of this model from his successors:

1. Keep telling your story, no matter how much evidence undermines the claims.
2. When the voters respond initially with shock or disfavor, keep pressing forward. In time, they'll grow tired and bored with the irritant. Given enough time, there is a good chance they'll turn their ire on the people holding you accountable for whatever shocked or irritated them in the first place.
3. Attack opponents endlessly, but always end the attack by saying you want to "work with your opponents," while demanding they end the "bitter partisanship" infecting Washington.

The proof is in the pudding. Consider President Clinton's standing today: How many people really remember the non-Monica Lewinsky allegations that engulfed his White House stay? Most people probably remember Clinton's unending Lewinsky scandal denials, but who really remembers he signed a plea bargain on his last day in office admitting his false statements under oath to avoid criminal prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice? Who really remembers he resigned his law licenses before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court to avoid disbarment? Most people look at him today and see Clinton the Elder Statesman or Clinton the Humanitarian. Most don't see Clinton the Perjurer (unless you are Paula Jones). From claims of renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, to trading pardons and Arlington gravesites for campaign donations, to paying hush money to imprisoned former top aides, to laundering Chinese military money into campaign coffers, to compromising military secrets to help major donors, and the unending "Gates" – Chinagate, Filegate, Travelgate – the list goes on.

Today people see many things in Bill Clinton, but when it comes to impeachment, they mostly see a guy who survived it. For better or worse, that becomes the biggest lesson of the Clinton impeachment melodrama.

My suspicion is that Clinton¹s successors will be tempted to gamble on the lessons learned from his impeachment. In 1998, the question seemed mild by comparison: Would a lame-duck president finish out his term, despite a host of allegations? In the future, the lessons learned from that question may have far deeper implications for America's future.

The Senate acquittal of Bill Clinton on all charges in the late 1990s may not be the last chapter in the saga; instead, it may be prologue to our current and future landscape.

Former Rep. James E. Rogan is the author of the forthcoming book, "Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes in a Presidential Impeachment," based on his private impeachment diaries. It is due for release by WND Books on May 3, 2011.