One month after the Senate concluded the impeachment trial of President Clinton, many still wonder why a majority of senators failed to convict him on either the charge of perjury or obstruction of justice. Important lessons were learned from this episode, but one of the benefits is the civics lesson many Americans got about our constitutional system of government.

Here is my list of the major lessons we learned:

• No matter how serious are the charges of misbehavior brought against a president, Congress will not remove him if he has public support and the backing of his own party.

  Most Republicans and Democrats were astonished to learn that Clintons job approval ratings went up following revelations about his White House dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, and again after his admission last August of "misleading" the public, the cabinet, and his own aides. A majority of Americans told pollsters they did not want Clinton removed from office, even though an even larger majority believed he lied about his relationship with the White House intern. Regarding party loyalty, nearly all Democrats in the House of Representatives voted in December against the two articles of impeachment. When the Senate voted in February, all forty-five Democrats opposed his conviction, more than enough to prevent removal.

• When the U.S. economy is healthy and Americans are pleased with their living standards, they will oppose the ouster of a president even if his behavior in office is scandalous.

  The inflation and jobless rates in the country were near all-time lows over the past year, and the stock market was booming. The standard of living for nearly all Americans rose. Unlike Richard Nixon, who presided over a troubled economy during his impeachment ordeal in 1974, Clinton benefited enormously from the "good times." Despite their lack of trust in the presidents integrity, the public didnt want Congress to tamper with the successful economy.

• Whenever the president is of one political party and both the Senate and House of Representatives are controlled by the opposition party, there is a likelihood that impeachment charges will be brought when major scandal involves the president.

  Nixon faced a Congress dominated by a Democratic Party which was determined to impeach him for the Watergate scandal, even though his job approval rating remained high. When it became clear that key Republican senators would not support him in a trial, Nixon resigned his office. Ronald Reagan might have been impeached in 1987 over the Iran-Contra affair, as both Senate and House were again controlled by Democrats. Reagan avoided Nixons fate because the public did not want him removed, and congressional Republicans stood by him.

• Opinion polls are a powerful new dimension in American politics and they make many members of Congress less courageous than before in voting their consciences.

  It took courage by Republican senators Howard Baker and Barry Goldwater, among others, to call on President Nixon to resign. In the Clinton-Lewinsky episode, not a single Senate Democrat demanded Clintons resignation, even though many of them condemned his actions. Senator Robert Byrd, for example, said that even though he believed the president had committed high crimes and misdemeanors, he would vote against conviction because the public was opposed. Other Democrats expressed pangs of conscience about their votes.

• White House domination of political news from Washington, particularly television news, gives a president and his staff enormous influence over the national agenda and the publics perception of reality.

  A seven-month effort by President Clintons "spin doctors" to deny his salacious relationship with Miss Lewinsky, and their success at political damage control following his confession to lying about it, underscores the power of the modern presidency to influence, even control, public opinion. All presidents have press secretaries who put out the correct line on their policies. But the Clinton White House has, in my view, elevated media management to a science. One has to admire the way Clintons team was able to eclipse the voices and the message of Republican leaders during the Lewinsky scandal, and during the impeachment process.

• The constitutional system of checks and balances worked, even though many political leaders and scholars warned that the country, including the stock market, would be imperiled by a presidential impeachment at this time.

  We heard people say that bringing formal charges against Clinton would have serious consequences at home and abroad. Even if he was guilty, many said, Clinton should be censured, not impeached, because of the effect on foreign policy. In the end, the trial was managed in a praiseworthy manner by Senators Trent Lott and Tom Daschle and presided over with dignity by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Senate emerged from this political crisis with its reputation enhanced, and no visible harm has come to the country.

• Extramarital sexual escapades are unlikely to be held against a future chief executive if he shows contrition. But lying about a sexual affair, however defined, will still get a president into trouble. The Clinton-Lewinsky episode taught us that most Americans no longer care about the sex life of their president if no crime is involved.

We will not see another presidential impeachment for some years. But one benefit that emerges from this affair is the publics new awareness of our system of checks and balances in government. We are hopefully a wiser people for having gone through this painful process.