Trying to Write A New Chapter

History repeats itself, so the saying goes. That maxim plays itself out in the United States Senate, as the most exclusive club in the country submits itself to trial in the public eye again.

While the nation starves for much needed reforms in health care, the economy and crime, the 100 men and women of the Senate are reenacting the spectacle of 1992's Clarence Thomas hearings. This time, instead of a nominee for the Supreme Court, the accused is one of the Senate's own: Sen. Bob Packwood, a Republican from Oregon who, like Thomas, is accused of sexual misconduct. In question are thousands of pages of diaries covering about a quarter century of Packwood's life.

Amidst all the complex parliamentary procedures and the legal double-talk slung by both sides, what is really on the defense, once again, is the Senate.

The Senate, by a vote of 96-4, passed a resolution authorizing the Ethics Committee to seek a federal court ruling to force Packwood to give the committee the records it wants. The diaries, the committee maintains, will answer the charges of sexual harassment and give them the necessary information to investigate other possible, but unnamed, crimes. Packwood offered to allow the committee to view only the parts relating to the specific charges, but the amendment from Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) which would have done just this was rejected 77-23.

Some Senators wondered aloud what Packwood was hiding from them. The committee wants to see not just the portions dealing with the alleged sexual misconduct, but all of it, everything from what he did on January 23, 1982 to what he really thought of one of his summer interns. Many supporters of the resolution contend that a public figure loses his right to privacy when entering public office. The committee itself bases its claims on the fact that Packwood already used parts of his diaries to defend himself earlier, thereby relinquishing any claims to privacy he has.

Packwood's lawyer, James F. Fitzpatrick, disagrees. He told The Boston Globe, that the resolution "constitutes a frontal attack on the constitutional right to privacy contained in the Fourth Amendment."

Not many of us could put ourselves in the senator's shoes. Imagine being accused of under-age alcohol possession. Would you let complete strangers read every entry of your diary written since kindergarten? While sexual harassment may be considerably more serious than underage drinking, the fundamental issue at hand is still privacy. Even worse, imagine if the Ad Board suspects you of some type of criminal behaviors but does not specifically name the crime. Should it nevertheless commandeer your diary? This is what is happening to Packwood.

At the same time, by forcibly confiscating Packwood's diaries, the Senate is essentially revoking his Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself. It certainly is important that if Packwood is guilty, he should be punished like all other citizens. But even those accused of capital crimes can choose not to incriminate themselves. Why should Packwood be denied this same right?

Stepping back from the constitutional arguments, there are several other long-term consequences. By opening up Packwood's diaries, the Senate will have sent a message: If you are going to do anything unethical or illegal, just don't write it down. One of the charms of diaries is that ideally, they can reveal deeply private information about a human being that could never be discovered any other way. Historians constantly pore over every word and nuance of these intimate journals of historical figures. To take a long-term view, future generations would suffer tremendously if all this generation left them were musty diaries stocked with lies.

But Packwood is not the only one on the stand. As Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) asserts in The Globe, "The Senate's reputation is very much at stake." Whether or not this entire issue is actually relevant to the lives of average Americans is moot; that every major newspaper has plastered its pages with stores, news analyses and columns on the controversy will force Bob and Mary Jones of Peoria to think about Packwood and the Senate--and not, perhaps, about the real political issues facing them.

Only a two short years ago, a group of male senators grilled a young female law professor from Oklahoma on national network television. This vivid memory alone will ensure that the appearance of justice may override the actual execution of it. As Andre Agassi would agree, image may very well be everything.

History is against Packwood, for no senator in modern times has opposed a subpoena for personal Papers. Although the Senate has not expelled anyone since the Civil War, Packwood may very well be the first. "In the end," as Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said in an interview with The New York Times, "the vote will not be based on ethical or legal questions, but on the politics of the moment. Do you want to be perceived as having voted for a cover-up?" With the specters of Watergate and Iran-Contra still haunting government and another election year just around the corner, few senators want to answer yes.

Packwood cannot and must not sacrifice his diaries. His reflections, whether personal or profound, belong to him and him alone. This debate should not fester in the public arena any longer, for the leaders of this country certainly have better things to do. If Packwood decides to work through the federal court system to challenge the subpoena, lawyers say he could delay action for up to two years. Another two years of "Bob Packwood" headlines will not appeal to Americans searching for good and responsible government.

To preserve the dignity of the Senate, Packwood should resign immediately. In a time when confidence in Washington is unhealthily low, the allegations surrounding Packwood, true or not, are not improving the situation. His ability to lead has been mortally wounded, and even the people of Oregon probably would not send him back to Capitol Hill if an election were held today. Resigning may take more bravery, but it is the only option left if Packwood truly wants to protect his right to privacy as well as the precarious condition of American government.