Thursday, May 18, 2017

Proceed with caution on calls for impeachment

Our breakfast time has always resembled a political analysis briefing. The news of the previous day is rehashed over egg, toast, coffee, and a decent night's sleep.

This morning's insight is that parties het up to impeach President Trump and git-r-done quick (E.J. Dionne, for example) for obstruction of justice, lying, appointing incompetents, bad hairstyling, and general Looney Toons behavior better make sure their case is iron clad. A President Trump who beats an impeachment would be more insufferable than the current version.

Think about it:


Beating an impeachment would strengthen President Trump's already bloated sense that he is a "winner." He would see it as an endorsement of his management style--issuing contradictory statements, using public appearances to complain about Fake News and how badly he's been treated by the press, and to belittle opponents with schoolyard name calling. Jabbering about The Wall and undesirable aliens would ramp up. An unimpeached President Trump would continue to endorse legislation that he doesn't understand and continue thinking up draconian cuts for public programs. In short, he would get a lot worse.

And failure to impeach President Trump would likely change the office of the presidency for the worse, too. Would future presidents feel the need to release tax statements, reveal the state of their health, set coherent foreign policy, and show respect for their opposition and the press? I doubt it. Would failure to impeach President Trump discourage other incompetents from running for office? No.

President Trump has already degraded what it means to be president. An unimpeached Trump would show that you can get away with all kinds of crooked and crazy and still stay in office.

The electoral process was proved a failure in 2016. And the checks designed to remove an incompetent and possibly crooked head of state would be a proven failure if President Trump beats an impeachment rap.

I'm not advocating timidity, but there's more at stake here than getting rid of Trump, and we need to make sure we're not going off half-cocked.

39 comments:

  1. "President Trump has already degraded what it means to be president. An unimpeached Trump would show that you can get away with all kinds of crooked and crazy and still stay in office."

    Agree. I was surprised by E.J.Dionne's out front position here. Things are a mess, true. And due largely to Trump's own craziness and ineptitude. Are enough Republicans and for that matter Democrats going to vote for impeachment in the House (right?) and then will the Senate convict him. Alternative: somebody or somebodies would do better to convince him to resign (that's how Nixon ended the agony); not that that will necessarily end the resentment, anger, and self-justifications.

    Reading about what Trump media and Trump defenders report on all this, we should recognize that there are going to be a large number of people who don't believe the stories in the MSM. It may be a minority, but it is a large one and an angry one. For resignation to work, a lot of Republican politicians and "statesman" are going to have to go on the line and declare him unfit for office: Giuliani, Christi, Mukasey, Ryan, Gorsuch, Roberts, Lugar........ etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The tendency to read “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” too literally is one reason the 25th amendment, which treats presidential incapacity as though it requires a special constitutional mechanism when in fact one was already in place, became necessary. It is also why, in a development that surely would have surprised Hamilton and Madison alike, the republic has managed 23 decades without a successful impeachment and conviction, the resignation of President Richard Nixon notwithstanding."

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/opinion/impeachment-trump-constitution.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

      Even John Yoo of Dubya infamy chimes in:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/opinion/trump-watergate-iran-contra.html?ref=opinion

      Delete
  2. I agree with much of your argument. I also agree with some who say that allowing Trump to continue to bumble, and having a frozen, do-nothing Congress would help weaken the grip the GOP has in Congress in 2018, and would also prevent Pence from coming in and acting like a real president (for better or worse). Pence would be far more effective at getting the agenda through, as bad as it is - he is rational, knows how congress works, etc This is not necessarily desirable when being effective means passing bad policies.

    But, I also worry about what kind of damage Trump could do to our nation and the world during the next couple of years. We can recover from stupid domestic policies. They would inflict damage, but they would not destroy our country literally and we could eventually recover.

    Trump is a huge national security risk and not just because of his loose lips. He is so easily manipulated that I'm quite sure the Russians haven't given up finding a stooge in Trump's inner circle they could use to influence the White House.

    Then there is the possibility of war, nuclear war, even if remote, it's real. The US and Russia managed a stand-off for decades through MAD - each side knew that if they launched an attack, they risked being destroyed in a counter-attack. But MAD assumed that rational people were at the controls. Trump is not rational, nor is the North Korean leader (you know, the "smart cookie" that Trump seemed to admire).

    So, would the people who do know, who are rational, be willing and able to stop Trump should he try to do something SO stupid he risks nuclear war?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard Nixon knew his time was up when Sens. Hugh Scott and Barry Goldwater and Minority Leader John Rhodes went to his hideaway office and told him his base was eroding beyond shoring up. Correspondingly, Trump would be hearing it from Sens. McConnell and Hatch or Grassley and Ryan. No movement there yet because Trump's base is holding. The argument, a legal case and passion don't amount to a hill of beans until the people who matter decide they do.

    In Nixon's day the folks who did him in,like Archibald Cox, Rep. Peter Rodino and Sens. Sam Irvin and Howard Baker were criticized by the Hotspurs for moving too slowly. But they got it done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are absolutely right, Tom B. The most recent polls show that most Americans disapprove of Trump but most registered Republicans approve of his performance. Until that cracks, the congressional leaders will continue to sit on their hands and support Trump while crossing their fingers and biting their tongues. Their own jobs are more important to them than the country, and they don't want to risk alienating the voters who put them in office and keep them there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trump is already doing everything he wants to, not matter how outrageous, from gutting the EPA to getting us on the brink of nuclear war with N. Korea .... I don't think we should be worried about what he might do but instead about what he is doing.

    The argument used here is the same one victims of domestic violence and hostages make to themselves when they're afraid to stand up to the person hurting them .... yes, we're being damaged, but we should just try to survive it, not stop it, because if we fail, things will get even worse.

    But even if an impeachment fails, the people standing against Trump will continue to try to stop him - civil rights groups like the ACLU, judges and AGs, environmental groups, the press, and just ordinary people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The deputation of conservatives who visited RMN were people he had worked with for years and whose judgment he trusted. Trump has no associations like this with the congressional leadership. I doubt very much that a contingent from Congress would make a dent with Trump. Just don't see him resigning publicly.

    For the public good, he needs to be impeached, and then pardoned as if he were a criminal or indicted for crimes. Then he needs to be interviewed by someone like David Frost.

    Hate to use "stake in the heart" metaphors, but some people will continue to gin up support and influence unless they are well and truly revealed for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean, Good point. Trump is very good at being his own enabler.

      Delete
  7. Crystal, I think the people against Trump may continue to work against him if he beats back an impeachment, but they would be weakened "losers" in the black and white world of the Trumpeters in ascendency. And they will take EVERY opportunity to gloat about their victory and taunt their opponents. Moreover, those in Trump's own party inclined to disagree with him would likely keep their mouths shut. People who are already dispirited are going to wave away further efforts because what's the point? If a president like Trump is allowed to stay in office, there truly are no checks and balances on incompetency at the highest levels.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, Jean, I don't doubt that if the impeachment fails his toadies will gloat and Republican opponents in congress will fold. That's not a good enough reason not to try to impeach him.

    I think the will of those against him is underestimated - they really will not give up because what he represents is the death of what they hold dear - freedom of the press, civil rights for minorities, saving the environment, affordable and good public education, health care for more than the wealthy, women's reproductive rights, peace ... the list goes on.

    He is bad for the country and we can't just let that go if there's a chance we can stop him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, no, I'm not against impeaching him at all. I just want to make sure he gets impeached so he doesn't get worse. A Trump who is able to thwart impeachment is going to start suspending civil liberties, insisting on going after the press, doing sweetheart deals with foreign governments, and poking hostile nations with nuclear bombs. He's gonna make Nixon look like a huggy bear.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, I worry about that too and in so many ways in my own life I've decided not to challenge someone in case I don't win and they would come back and destroy me. I just hope those opposing Trump are braver than me :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. The main goal should be to defeat as many Republicans as possible in 2018. Of course they should do the right thing and vote to impeach him in the House and convict him in the Senate. But let's hope they don't, so that impeachment is a good issue in the 2018 elections.

    Let us not forget that Trump is a Republican president selected in a Republican primary, and elected mostly by Republicans. Republicans are responsible for Trump; the majority of us Americans voted against him.

    We should hope that Trump makes all Americans miserable between now and November 2018 so that everyone goes to polls and does the right thing, voting every Republican in sight out of office.

    I'm willing to put up with Trump for two years if he brings about a Democratic House and Senate. Then we can take care of Trump.

    Democrats should not fool themselves or think they can fool the American people; Democrats need a vision of what they are going to do in 2018 besides getting rid of Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I get your point, Jack, but hoping for misery? No thanks, especially since we low income folks will likely get more misery than anyone else. And I object to timing the misery and insanity just to leverage more Democrats into Congress. Especially, as you note, when they have no vision. I honestly don't know if I want to be a Democrat anymore. Especially if the rumor that Hillary is going to make another run at the WH in 2020 is true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean, I really hope HC isn't going to make another run. Not that I think she's horrible or anything. I thought she served well as Secretary of State. But if she didn't win this time, I see no reason to believe she could next time. She would be well into her 70s, time to play with the grandkids and grow geraniums. The Ds need some new blood and fresh ideas.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. There is also talk of persuading Michelle Obama to run. She is seems like a great person, but I grow leery of these political dynasties. Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes. Our political landscape is starting to look like Hollywood with its reboots and prequel/sequels.

      I agree that we need some new players.

      Delete
  13. My point is that we need to construct a vision for the future. I have always felt the worst thing in life is to allow evil to define who we are by focusing upon it. That's why I spend minimal time on Trump and the Republicans. Best to hope they destroy each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for timing, 2018 is almost unrealistically hopeful, even 2020 may be optimistic. Some of the young people who supported Bernie thought there would not be enough young people to save us until 2024! Looks like there might be time to build a third party.

      Delete
  14. I don't know what will happen in future elections - hopefully the Democrats will get more votes - but there's damage being done every day that Trump is president. Three more years of him will be bad for so many people, not to mention the environment ... Donald Trump presidency a 'disaster for the planet', warn climate scientists

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think it's really important to get any impeachment attempt right, it can't be perceived as just another partisan hit job. The case for it needs to be as airtight as possible. As Tom pointed out above none of it amounts to anything "...until the people who matter say that it does." To hear some people talk, you'd think that impeachment was just an attempt to undo the election. But Hillary Clinton wouldn't be president, Pence would. And in the event that happens, we'd better pray that Pence has no damningly compromising skeletons in his closet, because Ryan would be next in the line of succession. I don't know but what I'd rather take a chance on leaving Trump in place than that. I never thought I would say that I miss John Boehner.

    ReplyDelete
  16. But if it was found that the election was rigged, might they not let Hillary, who did win a majority of the votes, take office?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. My guess is that the Supreme Court would decide. Or Ryan would take over.

      Delete
  17. Even if Trump were to be impeached, it still leaves in place the condition of the US electorate that pit him in place. I consider the problem to be not only the lack of information, but an actual cognitive decline. The internet and social media addle the brains of the young. Watching decades of Fox News does the trick for the older people. I think Fox not only misinforms, but it also alters the thought processes of the watchers. A millenial physicist I work with talked about how his father was confused by his son's very method of presenting an argument, especially the analysis part. The father seemed to consider it overly tricky. Being a nice guy, he said his father just thought differently. I propose that decades of being told what to think has short circuited the mental faculties. I think this is not something that happened by accident.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's the problem, Stanley. As Katherine pointed out, after Trump comes Pence, whom Trump picked. And after Pence comes Ryan whom the formerly reasonable people of Wisconsin sent to Washington and who was grudgingly elevated by the collection of tea partiers and people who never get invited to their tea parties that is known as the Republican Party, but all of whom were elected by Americans somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The electoral process failed in three ways: Too few people cared enough to vote, too many who did vote were paying attention to tone and attitude rather than content, and the electoral college did not ensure that the popular vote (and most qualified candidate) was selected.

    I guess I could also throw in gerrymandering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about a fourth failure. The Democratic Party let Hillary decide early on that she would be the candidate. There should have been a committee to say, "No!" She would/might have run anyway, but the party would have supported and encouraged others (pace Wasserman-Schultz). She might have won the primaries, she might have been elected. But she would not have had it handed to her (pace Bernis Saunders).

      If we think the Republican Party is a mess, let's not forget the Democrats are an even bigger mess.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I think there was a sense that "it's Hillary's turn." I guess I've never really understood her appeal to the Democrats for whom she has always seemed the obvious choice.

      Delete
  20. I agree. The Democrats abandoned the working class and the middle class. I started to realize this belatedly in the second Clinton term. And I also realised that Clinton WAS "slick Willie". Depends on what you mean by "is", indeed. Until then, I was uncritically Democrat. The country is in this state because the Democrats stopped being Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't think the Democrats have abandoned anyone. Who do you think is opposing the Republican's health care bill that would gut Medicaid? Who do you think is opposing the Republican budget that would give breaks to the rich?

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you go back to, say, 1960, presidential candidates were chosen by conventions consisting mainly of people who were holding or running for offices from city councilman to U.S. Senate. And the one thing those folks did not want was to run on a ticket with a loser at the top.

    The Democrats (followed later by the Republicans) fixed that. Fixed it real good. They changed the rules so more people with a lot of money and only a personal interest (say offshore drilling) but no gut interest the party's future would go to the convention. And they, in turn, would be semi-controlled by people voting in primaries that news and advertising had gotten them worked up about. Or not.

    And now no one cares if there is a loser at the top of the ticket so long as his or her individual itch is scratched.

    And they called it reform.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...so long as his or her individual itch is scratched." And apparently there is a xenophobic itch, and a scared of change itch, and a jingoistic itch....

      Delete
    2. So I open up Facebook this morning and someone had posted a link in which Franklin Graham is quoted as saying, "Trump will remain in the White House until God's purpose is fulfilled." (No, I'm not going to post the link!) That's part of the problem, there is a subset of people who will think he is the Lord's anointed even if he starts a nuclear war.

      Delete
    3. Right Tom....Reform turned to deform and here we are. The Democrats have let local party structures go to pot (no pun intended, but you sometimes want to know what they're smoking).

      As to Crystal: the Democrats have abandoned the responsibility of being a party. Hillary was attractive to the party because she could raise big bucks...Hollywood, Wall Street, and rich Liberals. She didn't need anyone else except to show up in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania--and guess what, they didn't.

      Delete
    4. That guy is something else.

      Delete
  23. But then why did those who are not rich but instead the most vulnerable in society vote for Hillary .... racial minorities, women, LGBT, the poor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crystal, I think those people perceived (correctly) that HC was better for them than Trump. But the way the electoral system is set up worked against them. There wasn't a critical mass of them in the right places. The electoral college is another elephant in the living room that needs to be reformed or done away with. But don't hold your breath.

      Delete
    2. We forget that a lot of Democrats who voted for Obama didn't vote for Clinton, many of them in the critical electoral states. We may also be dealing with the "What's Wrong with Kansas?" question asked by Thomas Frank some campaigns ago, i.e., why do poor and poorish people whose interests could be said to fall with the Democrats vote for Republicans. As I recall there were many reasons offered not all of them to do with economics, but what might be thought of as behavioral economics--I aspire to be as rich as Republicans so I will vote Republican.

      Delete