Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 20, 1994)
The power to recall shouldn't be abused More than 200 years ago. the framers of the Constitu tion began a debate that has yet to be resolved: How much direct influence should ordinary citizens have in deciding the policies of their government? The original participants in this debate were divided into two principal camps, led by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, trusting the good nature and judgment of the people, favored a government that was more directly controlled by its citizens; Hamilton, in turn, was reluctant to allow important national deci sions to be overly influenced by an inconstant and some times ignorant populace. The Constitution, and the then-unprecedented gov ernment that it established, is the product of n compro mise between those two ideals — a compromise that has served us well for two centuries. In recent years, however, the notion of democracy has changed and wavered, and some people are calling for measures more in line with the Jeffersonian ideal — an ideal that gives the people a lot of credit but presents them with serious responsibilities as well. One such measure is the power to recall elected rep resentatives who fall out of favor with their constituents. It is not as explicit a moans of influencing government decisions as say. the referendum, but its implications may be just as significant. At presont. local politicians are the most likely to bo recalled, because local governments are more likely to have recall laws in force. Higher levels of government may not offer the citizenry the power to recall. For instance, it is not possible to recall federal officials (like the president), and IJ.S. senators and representatives are similarly safe. This has raised the ire of some citizen activists, who would like to have the power to throw out politicians who don't behave like tney want them to. Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood provides ono example. But the fact remains that there are already other mech anisms for removing such unpopular politicians; they’re called "elections." The fact that an angry voter will have to wait as long as six years to throw out an errant repre sentative is essentially irrelevant. If the politician has done something truly criminal or has demonstrated outright incompetence in the job. then there are usually mechanisms to toss him out before his term expires. Presidents can be impeached and fired; senators may be censured. But the people are not — and should not be — directly Involved in such proceedings. After all. if we think politicians aren’t willing to make tough decisions now. for fear of being unseated in a race for re-election, then how willing will they be when they know they can be immediately thrown out of office by a recall vote? This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect our representatives to make our decisions for us. The recall is a powerful tool that, if abused, can undermine the integrity of that democracy. If it is used at all, it should be used only in the most extreme of cases. Oregon Daily Emerald Editor Hmdnal Editorial E. Graphics Editor Freelance Editor The Ontgon I mmmd t» published daily Monday through I nday during the school yeai and Tuesday and Thursday during tha lurnmer by the Or agon D»iy Emerald Pubtu/uno Co . Inc atthe Unrvererty ol Oregon Eugene Oregon The fmersW operates mdependency oi tha Uruvervty wrth oiticaa at SuKa 300 ol ma fib Memorial Union and ■» a member Ol the Aaaooatad Press Tha Emerald « pnvale pioparty Tha unlawhi removal or use ol papers a prosecutable by law Edltor-M-ChW: J*e Barg CaHey Andaraon (porta Editor Slava Mma David Thom Editorial Edhor Jed PtcAhan* Jad Paalay Photo Editor Anthony Forney Jad Winters Supplements EtPtor Kaly Soto Mgpt Editor CaHey Anderson Associate Editor*: Toward Ktoplenatew. Student Govammant'ActrvrOaa, Rebecca Marnd. Commundy. JuSe Swan sen. Mgher fabcaaorVAdTumolrahon Naan Staff: Mandy Baucum. Wilson Chan. Dave Charbomaau. Jm Dams. Msg Oedotph Amy Davenport. Cara Echevarria. Malta I aids. Martin Fisher. Sarah Henderson. Hatfherte tsmaa. Vm leng Leong. Manus Meland, Trtsla Noel. Elisabeth Bean mama. Kata Sabourm Ftobtva Reevea. Lie Sarocoa Seed Srmooson. Stephan* Srsson. Susanna Stedsna. Ji*e Swansan MfchtSe Thompson Aguiar. Kevin Tnpp. Amy Van Tuyt. Denial Weal Oenaral Manager Judy B*d Advertising Director Marti Wadai Production Manager: Mchele Boas Advertising: Subs Dude. Nicole Herrmart Teresa Isabelle Jed Manon Jeremy Mason Mvrhaal Milled• van V O'Bryan U. Rachael Tru«. riataay Waken. Angie Wmcfieu" Classified Uecfcy Merchant. Manager Vidor Metis Sm Tra Tecs Olatrlbutlon: Andy Harvey. John Long. Graham Simpson (ualnaaa: Kathy Carbone. Supervrstv Judy ComoSy Production: Dae McCobb. Production CoonSnaKv Shawna Aba*. Greg Oaamond. Tara GauKney Brad Joss Stacy Wtchei. Jennifer Roland. Nad Thangwi*. Clayton Yea MPM11 Dlaplay AdetKalng-NM7U JMMtS -I AM C0MPIE1W WMOOHrcrn** QM&S 1 twos' HCWMfe ABOUT*' OPINION Packwood: guilty until proven innocent Martin Fishfr If you cannot convince them, confuse them." — Harry S. Truman y-^all me old-fashioned, but. try as 1 might, I cannot seem to shake the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. Thus. I find myself in the awkward position of defending Oregon Sen. Boh Pack wood. Personally, I believe the sto ries (at least most of the ones I've heard) of the 29 women who claim Packwood sexually harassed them, or — if not sex ually harassed — found him at least extremely creepy. However. I cannot bring myself to join the now seeming ly deafening chorus of cries for the senator's resignation. Not yet. In case you haven't noticed, Packwood has not been convict ed of anything Yet this minor technicality seems to have escaped a great many people. One revolting televised incident comes immediately to mind — a protester shouted (they always shout) a demand for Packwood to resign. Packwood asked the protester if she thought he should at least get a fair hearing first. The protester responded. "You're getting your hearing,’' to which Packwood replied. "Where?” The protester responded. "All around the state of Oregon. " Go figure. Silly me, but I've always imagined a fair hearing to involve testimony under oath, a chance to confront and cross examine the accusers and the accused, and presentation of evidence. None of these steps has yet occurred. None of the 29 women has sworn to tell the truth before accusing Packwood. and I suspect Senate rules forbid Packwood from taking such an oath. Sorry, but trial and conviction in the court of public opinion just doesn't cut it. And what about those diaries? Although it's possible there may be evidence supporting the women's allegations, I find that unlikely I doubt investigators will rind the hypothetical entry suggested by David l>etterman — Dear diary, this morning 1 grabbed someone's ass." Of course, there may be other incriminating material in the diaries, but that's another story. I would be disappointed if Packwood resigned and deprived me of the chance to see him individually deny the 29 claims against him — "She's lying, and she's lying, and she's lying .. ." kind of like the Ener gizer Bunny. He just keeps going and going and going. But why would the 29 women lie? Unlike Anita Hill (whom I did not believe), these women have little to gain by coming for ward. Nobody is going to offer them $10,000 a pop to tell their stories. Their sheer numbers effectively devalue their stories so that no one is going to pay them to talk alnnit it. I hey re not trying to derail Packwood'* campaign for office. If that had been their motiva tion, they would have come for ward with a vengeance during the last election. In fact, many of them had been Packwood sup porters. One accuser said she would still support Packwood if ho would just apologize and get some help. In short, they get nothing for their efforts, which in my opin ion. gives even greater credibili ty to their stories. So, why doesn't Packwood just resign and spare Oregon the embarrassment? Because Oregon thrives on embarrassment. With out it. we'd never get any media attention. The Oregon Citizens Alliance is embarrassing, tree spiking eco-terrorists are embar rassing. Tonya Harding is embarrassing, the Bhagwan was embarrassing. Packwood is just one more notch in the state's history of embarrassment. Actually, it appeared for about a day that Packwood was going to resign. But leave it to young, dimwitted Democratic staffers to kill that plan. When they learned of Packwood'* potential Sorry, but trial and conviction in the court of public opinion just doesn’t cut it. resignation, a group of these i staffers apparently contacted the I Justice Department, which then I launched its own investigation of Pack wood. The new investigation effec- |j lively killed Packwood's resig- jfi nation. Had he resigned, he could not have used his con gressional immunities in | defending against the additional charges he may soon be facing. Instead, ho now has no choice but to remain and use his office as a shield. It is worth noting that Pack wood has been an effective voice for Oregon in the Senate. His influence has created many a job here and a lot of people owe the senator a debt of grati tude. He has also done a great deal of work in the area of women's rights, which, if the accusations prove true, may go down as one of politics' greater ironies. Hut as a sign I saw once said. "One 'aw shoot' wipes out a thousand 'atta-boys.' " 'I'hus, the question tends not to be "What have you done for me?" but rather "What have you done for me lately." And although lately Packwood hasn't done much of anything, his hands have been tied by people demanding his resignation instead of demand ing to know what he's going to do for Oregon in regards to for est and health issues. Some people are saying Pack wood "just doesn't get it." I've never understood exactly what that means, but in this case I know exactly what he hasn't got — a fair hearing. I for one intend to wait for the results of the investigations before demanding anybody do anything, as would anyone who actually has concerns about individual rights and abhors tri al by television. Martin Fisher is a columnist for the Emerald.
