Impeachment, continued

Posted on March 18, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!

Yesterday, I stirred up some reaction around the web with my post, “Impeachment in all but name.” Mostly, I heard from the “throw the bum out” crowd, suggesting my approach is too incremental at best. Many believe that a full-blown impeachment is the only correct course. One went so far as to suggest that we are in persistent danger of the administration declaring martial law and suspending elections.

I don’t share the extreme pessimism of the most fearful among us and have vastly more confidence in the military than that. The leaders and enlisted members were raised with the same values I was raised with, and would protect the constitution, not a petty dictator.

I was moved more by the comments that suggest the issue should be addressed honestly and cleanly. While I suggested the administration would impeach themselves by their actions, a formal impeachment process initiated by a bipartisan vote in congress would be the best course. I would not argue against that. While I doubt we can move enough Republicans today to do the right thing, I obliquely suggested that the present scandals will increase the chances for impeachment:

When, in time, the cronyism, incompetence, corruption, and contempt for democracy and the American people of the current administration is fully exposed, all reasonable alternatives become, once again, possible.

An Impeachment would send a message to the world that Americans are not represented by the cynicism and cowboy diplomacy of the current administration. We could disavow this administration’s misdeeds foreign and domestic and set a new course. We will still have to take responsibility for cleaning up our mess. To do so will help associate our deeds with our words and help clean up our image around the world.

Further, and just as importantly, we communicate to our children and future generations that we do embrace our founders’ values. We would provide an object lesson of how even a great nation can slip to the brink of fascism and find our way back.

There is entrenched opposition to such a national repentance.

Republicans are fooling themselves right now, making the calculation that the fallout from the Bush presidency can be minimized. They are looking at a future of uncertain duration when their party will be discredited by the last 6 years and whatever comes next. To my thinking, they serve their party better by quickly ending the charade and disassociating themselves from their past.

Additionally there are powerful moneyed interests that are just fine with the status quo. It will take a vast popular movement to break politicians, whom they think they own, away from their control.

I don’t know whether a formal impeachment is possible. I hope it is. Just the same I’m happy, for now, believing things are moving in the right direction.

Comments

6 Responses to “Impeachment, continued”

Chris Loosley on March 18th, 2007 6:22 pm

I agree that Impeachment would “send a message to the world that Americans are not represented by the cynicism and cowboy diplomacy,” and “communicate to our children and future generations that we do embrace our founders’ values,” and “provide an object lesson of how even a great nation can slip to the brink of fascism and find our way back”.

Those are fine visions, and I too would like to be able to imagine a future in which we see them fulfilled. But the situation today is like that of any 12-step rehab program, in which to attain the benefits of the cure, the patient must first admit to the existence of the problem.

And in this case, I also agree with you that there appears to be “entrenched opposition to such a national repentance”. In fact I’d say there is widespread denial (or, to be generous about it, unawareness) of the existence of the problem, or at least, of its severity. Naturally this unawareness is fostered by many whose political beliefs actually place them closer to fascism than to liberalism, although they would not willingly adopt that label.

So what is the hope for a cure? How bad do things have to get before the patient will admit that there is a problem? If they are not bad enough today to produce unanimity about the problems, I’m not optimistic. Generally when the severity of the problem is not obvious, times when things appear to be “moving in the right direction” are merely hiccups in the decline, not signs of a real recovery.

If the 2008 election gives liberal democrats landslide victories in the House, Senate, and Executive, then I’ll be more optimistic.
johnpaul on March 18th, 2007 10:07 pm

Chris, Optimism is a habit of mine and I was taught as a pup that it is a virtue. I can also see the trap of it. It does not help in the midst of a crisis of denial, such as you describe. Also while wary of conspiracy theories, I do worry that there is much beneath the surface that those among us who might recognize the dangers, simply do not see.

With my optimistic nature, it also troubles me that both political camps think we must stategize on how to gain and hold on to power rather than using our energies to do policy that increases the public good.

The sea change in participation wrought by growth of the internet is still an unknown quantity. I sometimes despair of it’s usefulness as an instrument to bring people together, rather than to polarize.

My writing is often more moderate than what I might say over a beer with a friend. I write what I think is appropriate in a public arena, though I suspect I’d find more readers if I wrote more edgy, leftist stuff.

I get many signals of readers’ impatience when I advocate something less than revolutionary change. Your comments surprise me because I perceive in them some agreement that creating change requires some groundwork, that we’re not likely to get everything we want suddenly, and without a fair amount of process.

Radicals have a place. They change some minds and make people who more or less agree, but more moderately, seem not so radical themselves. Those who work small, gradual changes in the middle often owe substantial debt to the folks on the fringes making precocious demands.
Peace, John Paul
Chris Loosley on March 18th, 2007 11:56 pm

John Paul,
You’re right, change requires a long slow slog. We did not get to “the brink of fascism” just because Bush and (more importantly) Cheney were elected. Their administration is the culmination of a 25-year project by the right which began after the setbacks they suffered because of Watergate. So the idea that all that damage can be undone overnight, while it may be appealing to radicals, is fanciful and completely unrealistic.

It may not even be undone in our lifetimes — in that sense, you may call me a pessimist. But I am very optimistic, certain even, that it will be undone eventually, after things get bad enough, for the same reasons that we are not part of the Roman Empire.
–Chris
johnpaul on March 20th, 2007 9:44 am

Chris, It’s important to be able to see the long view as you do. Just the same, not all change is slow; but, it is often fitful. Republican ascendancy ended rather quickly after a long steady climb. That does not mean that they’re giving up. Congress, especially the Senate, could teeter between parties for a decade or more. We don’t know if a Republican candidate can change course for their party in 2008 presidential elections. Likewise, the change to acknowledge global warming and to take concrete steps to curb carbon emissions has been sudden, after a long time of almost hopeless advocacy on behalf of the science and the planet. That doesn’t mean that AEI (American Enterprise Institute) and Exxon will not try and turn back the clock. Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth may be all but forgotten in a decade and the issues will remain regarding whether we can have and consume plentiful, clean energy. There will always be forces pulling in opposite directions. Greed seems too often to win out over righteousness.
stephen miller on March 24th, 2007 12:51 pm

If there is no impeachment, history will record these last 6 years as the end of the “American Century”, and the end of America’s recent leadership of the centuries-old enlightenment project.

If they are impeached, and condemned and jailed, we have a chance at recuperating our position. Otherwise, not. Think about it.
Joan on March 27th, 2007 7:14 am

Another problem that will mean a slower pace of change is the attitudes of the natives. Out here where I live, people are largely conservative (In “purple” Ohio, urban areas are blue, rural red.) Right now I am getting two types of responses from them, in the face of continued revelations of leadership corruption. The first is, “Well, they’re ALL that way, Democrat or Republican, so it doesn’t matter.” And the other is, “I’m just sick of the whole thing, I don’t want to hear anything more about any of it. I just don’t listen anymore.”

Supporting what Chris said earlier, both of these reactions are means of escaping any responsibility for having supported, and yes, trumpeted the virtues of this leadership for the past six years. They are not likely to throw their support into recognizing the problem, let alone getting behind a movement to fix it.

And I agree with your call to investigate and prosecute all possible crimes quickly and effectively. This is my own twisted perspective, I know, but I would prefer to see the administration impotent for the next two years, versus leaving in a flourish of martyrdom and [self-]righteous indignation.

It may have one more effect. I remember watching conservatives bash Clinton time after time after time, and none of it stuck because none of it was true. But the mere repetition of attacks had a cumulative effect, and people here began to mutter, then proclaim, “Well, there must be something there, ’cause it’s just one scandal after the other.” Other than the sex episode, there was no evidence for any of the charges, yet Monicagate was perceived to be “the smoking gun.” “AHA! I knew he was corrupt!! They finally got him!”

Perhaps we’ll have the same effect now, as real corruption is revealed over and over and over again. Maybe people who have their heads in the sand will actually look up and notice and feel compelled to recognize that something must be going on worthy of their attention. With Clinton it was repeated investigations. With Bush, it’s going to be repeated indictments and convictions.

Joan