Two old pros coming before the United States House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee in order to plead for values which have marked their long careers—for me this was an impressive sight, as their faces loomed large on my television.
Father Robert Drinan and Professor Samuel Beer each made stirring statements against the course of action proposed by the majority of the House Judiciary Committee. As it turned out, their testimony availed little or nothing against the House’s inexorable drive toward impeachment but they tried nobly.
Father Drinan is himself a former member of the House, having represented the Massachusetts fourth congressional district for ten years. He will go down in history as being the first member of the Judiciary Committee to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974.
His service in the House came to an end two years later when Pope John Paul II required all priests to give up elective office. When ordered to do so, Drinan obediently agreed not to run for a further term.
Throughout his career as priest and public servant, this New England Jesuit has built an outstanding record. As dean of Boston College Law School, and more recently professor at Georgetown Law Center, he has been a strong voice for human rights, using his legal expertise on behalf of oppressed people throughout the world.
My friendship with him began in 1953 when we were Jesuit colleagues, he an already accomplished writer and intellectual leader while I was still a mere apprentice. On a more personal note, he will always be close to my heart as the one who first notified me of my father’s last illness.
To see his bony, austere, aging face on television the day he testified before the committee and the nation, was for me a moving sight. Now 78 years of age, he belongs to a diminishing breed—avowed liberals who continue to profess political ideals now wildly unpopular in Congress.
Drinan testified before the House Judiciary Committee twice. The first time, on November 9th, Father Drinan spoke as a constitutional expert and said there was no foundation for impeachment.
The second time, on December 8th, he was asked to share his experience of 24 years earlier. “The situation before the House Judiciary Committee today is entirely different from the scene in 1974,” he told members. Last week he told me how he felt about the comparison, “I resented the attempt to make them parallel.”
About his overall impact, he told me, “We didn’t persuade anyone. But you have to keep hoping.”
Samuel Beer, a more recent friend, also has a distinguished record. At age 87, he is Professor Emeritus of Government at Harvard University. After his retirement from Harvard he became the first holder of the Thomas P. O’Neill chair at Boston College. At this stage of his long career, he continues to consult with governmental bodies on vital issues, most recently with members of the British House of Commons.
Beer formerly served as national chairman of the Americans for Democratic Action, a leading advocacy organization on the left. Like Bob Drinan, he is an unabashed political liberal who believes in principles now quite unpopular in the nation’s capital.
Beer’s main message on December 8th was that the House of Representatives in moving toward impeachment was embarked on what is “primarily a political, not a judicial act.” Since, in the American system, the people are sovereign rather than the legislature, the latter ought to do “what the people at their best would do.”
I am aware, of course, that some readers of this column may feel out of sympathy with the views of Beer and Drinan. They may have applauded the House’s action in impeaching Bill Clinton.
Nonetheless even those readers can find reason to admire these senior statesmen who came forward when they saw their nation in need of wisdom. This kind of public spirit in Americans who could have appealed to age as reason for no longer fighting political battles should stir respect.
These two seasoned veterans of the political wars provide a model of action for people who feel concern for our nation. Both men demonstrate remarkable consistency. They acted on principles firmly held and tested over a long period of time. Rejection of their views did not deter them from speaking out.
As this politically turbulent year of 1998 comes to a close, I, for one, will continue to be inspired by the sight of these two elder statesmen taking a principled stand at a time of grave national crisis.
Their distinctive faces will remain engraved in memory as I review the events of the past twelve months. For me they show elderhood at its best—the sharing of wisdom gained over long lifetimes of service and learning.
Richard Griffin