SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 – Like you, I trust, I’m scandalized by the incessant gush of the president’s corruptionfecklessnesserraticismselfdealingnepotismvindictive behaviorsupportfordictatorscontemptforalliesscornforsciencedisregardfortheruleoflawinhumanetreatmentofdesperatehumanbeingspersonalderisionofothersetceteraadnausem.
Now the latest serious infraction: Ukraine-Bidengate, a much simpler case of wrong than the Byzantine record of prior offenses. Finally, Pelosi says enough is enough. Yet some Democrats still oppose impeachment on grounds the process would be “too divisive” and a losing proposition thanks to Senate Republicans. I used to agree. I no longer do.
The “too divisive” rationale is three-ways flawed.
First, we’re already divided. By early 2016 Republicans had lost their olfactory senses—apparently for keeps. By roughly the same time, the rest of the country smelled a rat—and still do. Impeachment can do little more than what cable news, social media, and we have already done to ourselves. Whoever is non-partisan is most likely a non-voter or a “fringe” voter, who will be unaffected by impeachment.
Second, history shows that impeachment doesn’t increase division. When Andrew Johnson was impeached, the country was barely beyond the Civil War—steroidal division! We survived—both the war and Johnson’s impeachment. Only three presidents since (besides the sitting one) faced impeachment. One resigned in the face of inevitable impeachment for obstruction of justice. In fact, Congressional Republicans abandoned Nixon after it became clear Nixon had abandoned regard for the law. No division over Nixon’s demise. Another president to worry about impeachment (over campaign corruption) before he became president was saved by the bullet that killed JFK. Vietnam proved to be ever more divisive than his impeachment could have been. When in 1998 Republicans impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, they did not worry about the “divisive” effects of such action. The body politic survived the Clinton debacle just fine. In short, history provides strong evidence that increased “divisiveness” does not follow impeachment.
Third, though reticent Democrats worry about the possible adverse political consequences of impeachment (and aquittal) on Democrats, they must worry too about the known harmful effects of the president’s behavior on democracy. His rampant disregard for the law is part of a chronic pattern that has already undermined our country. At home he has lowered our own political standards for what a president can get away with. Abroad, he has reduced our standing and influence. Who among our allies will trust America even after the current president is “over”? If we chicken out over fear of losing the fight, how much less will our Allies think of us? Already loss of confidence in America has created major problems in trade negotiations, building coalitions to confront a common adversary, and developing a unified strategy to address climate change.
The nation has foolishly brought a dangerous fool upon itself. We must convince ourselves and the world that we have not taken complete leave of our democratic senses. Impeachment over Ukraine-Bidengate will do much to restore confidence in our political will and resilience—irrespective of the outcome at trial in the Senate.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
