The movement is afoot — despite Pelosi’s claim that impeachment is not on the agenda, the rank and file is beginning to call for Bush’s impeachment (posts about this trend are here and here). It’s easy enough to lay the blame on Bush Derangement Syndrome, but I think the problem goes much deeper than that. I think the genesis for the drive to disenfranchise voters by impeaching presidents goes back to Watergate, when impeachment suddenly went from being a dry Constitutional doctrine to a very real possibility. After all the mere threat of impeachment was enough to drive Nixon voluntarily out of office.
Think back in time. Before Nixon, the last impeachment trial involved Andrew Johnson, in 1868. Although a technical rationale was found for the trial (his alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act), the trial, occurring a mere three years after the Civil War ended, was in effect an indictment of the entire Reconstruction era. The bitter upheaval of that time must have soured Americans on the impeachment option, since they didn’t try it again for 105 years — and that’s where we get to Watergate.
There is no doubt that Richard Nixon, while a surprisingly effect President, was also an extremely corrupt one. When Woodward and Bernstein exposed Watergate, American voters got a chance to see into the belly of a criminal act aimed at derailing the election process. Given the turmoil of that era, it’s no surprise that impeachment proceedings began. And given Nixon’s undoubted involvement in dirty, dirty politics, it’s no surprise that he left office rather than face charges.
What’s also no surprise is that today’s political generation came of age believing (a) all politicians are corrupt and (b) if the corruption doesn’t favor your side of the political divide, you should do the bloodless American equivalent of killing the king* — you should demand presidential impeachment. The same generation, viewing Woodward’s and Bernstein’s heroic stature and fame with awe, concluded that a reporter reaches his professional pinnacle when he exposes a Presidency so as to result in impeachment (or threatened impeachment).
This belief system — that a good way to get rid of a politician against whom you voted is through impeachment, and that the greatest reporter is the one who sets the stage for impeachment — infects both sides of the political divide. After all, it was Republicans who were able to have an impeachment trial for Bill Clinton based on charges that he lied about sex. Now, I know that, back then, everybody on the Right kept explaining that “it’s not about the sex, it’s about the lying.” I also know that Clinton was a pathological liar, a possible rapist, and the keeper of a corrupt White House, but let’s not kid ourselves. That impeachment trial was an excuse to get around an unsatisfying election result. It’s no surprise, therefore, that Democrats, now that they have the power, should try to do precisely the same thing. Since Watergate, impeachment is considered a viable means to undermine votes.
Incidentally, that impulse plays out at the State level too. I happen to like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I voted for him in the recent election. Certainly I think he’s a much more effective politician than Gray Davis was, and better for California. I wasn’t sad to see Davis go. Nevertheless, when the vote to recall Davis came on the ballot, I gave it a decided thumbs down. I strongly disliked the fact that 10% of unhappy voters (and that’s all it takes for a California recall) could undermine the electoral process — a belief I hold to regardless of the fact that I also believe that those who voted Davis into office in the first place were completely wrong to do so. After all, that’s life in a Democracy — the majority of voters can make what you think is a bad decision, just as I think that this election reflected that dumb Democracy outcome.
The Watergate legacy plays out a bit differently amongst reporters because of the fact that the majority of reporters are liberal. While they were happy to go after Clinton if someone else got the ball rolling (no one can accuse the reporters of holding back in retelling Clinton’s sex scandals), I don’t think anyone can seriously deny they reserve their energy, creativity, and advocacy for going after Republican presidents. When there’s a Republican in the White House, reporters don’t simply wait for a private interest to bring something to light; they aggressively try to create opportunities to set the impeachment ball in motion, even if that means making up things (I’m thinking Rathergate here). Still, biases aside, it was Watergate that made them think that they earn their stripes by setting the stage for impeachment.
I’ve got to turn my attention back to work, but I do think that Americans, on either side of the spectrum, have to address the profoundly anti-Democratic impulses that Watergate created. Unless we do so, politics will never again be about governing, and reporting will never again be about keeping the system honest. Instead, politics and reporting will always be about an elaborate “Gotcha” game, with the end goal being the overthrow, not just of the President, but of the American voter.
________________
*By the way, the “checkmate” in my post title comes from the popular belief that the word “checkmate” comes from the Persian phrase “shah mat,” meaning the king has dead. From this comes the belief that the word “checkmate” means “kill the king.” In fact, the most it probably means is that the king is about to be compromised, which is an equally useful definition in the context of this post.
Filed under: Bush Derangement Syndrome, Elections, Media matters
Impeachment has been freely discussion in the MSM and in Democrat circles for YEARS, so no one should be surprised if the ‘angry villagers’ start after the President and his entire administration. They knew the barbarians were at the gate, but they incited in letting them in. The Republicans and President may be foolish but they aren’t fools. They made the bed and problem is it just maybe a bed of nails.
Best way to make somebody stop doing something, Bookworm, is to make sure that it doesn’t work for them. There are various ways of doing so.
If something becomes painful to do, and doing it isn’t benefiting them personally, then they will stop doing it. How do you make it painful for the media to play gotcha games? You can strip them of their press credentials, and only give exclusives to Fox. For example, instead of Fox news hearing from the AP that Rummy was going to resign, the President should have personally called Fox News on the phone, to give them to scoop. That’s the carrot, the punishment is when the President orders everyone in the Executive to stop telling the media anything, on pain of being fired and destroyed on a professional AND personal basis by Executive Powers. And that’s just one way to counter the media front, we haven’t even gotten to the electoral front yet or the Democrat party front.
Since the Dems won’t be able to put any of their pet projects into effect until after the 2008 presidential campaign lest they tip their hand to voters, the next two years will be an orgy of investigations, exposés, and even an attempt at impeachment. None of it will go anywhere, but no matter, the whole thing will be orchestrated for maximum media coverage, allowing for a parade of lurid headlines designed soften voters for the next election.
If Dems succeed and take the White House in ‘08, the true scope of the horror perpetrated on Tuesday will made so plain that it will be apparent to even the most casual observer of the political scene.
In her American Thinker, Clarice Feldman, calls it The most corrupt Congress ever. She’s right and we ain’t seen nothing yet.
I don’t know, BW, don’t want to go overboard there. We’ve all grown up with the concept drummed into our heads that Nixon was the personification of evil, and I’m frankly unsure why.
There is no question, as a matter of history, that the 1960 election was stolen from him, which could well make you a cynic about the system. (Citing references is pointless, you all know them, there have been over the years at least thirty books on the 1960 election.)
But – when it came time to line up against him, there were two counts – and two counts only – ready to be alleged in impeachment proceedings (had they gone forward): Count One was impeding the investigation (obstructing justice); and Count Two would have been lying to the American people. Those were the only two counts, and that’s hardly a laundry list of criminous activity.
I have looked with a microscope, and I’m damned if I can see how this is any different than what Clinton did. Clinton certainly obstructed justice, he certainly instructed others to obstruct justice (suborned perjury); and he certainly lied to a federal judge, federal investigators, the American people, and the entire planet on TV.
The difference is that republicans in fact turned out to be more honorable than democrats did.
The republicans actively participated in the investigation into Nixon – “what did he know and when did he know it?” came from Howard Baker, republican senator – whereas in the Clinton case the democrats actively participated only in casting doubt on the investigation, smearing the investigators, and doing everything in their power to render the whole episode pointless. Which they ultimately succeeded in doing.
All of which is fine, but I’m not sure where I see, as a matter of history, that Richard Nixon was your actual embodiment of evil.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and bad behavior doesn’t justify other bad behavior; but of the two of them I’d trust Nixon’s word all day long as opposed to Clinton.
That’s funny, JJ. My teenage daughter came home one evening and, over a history discussion at the dinner table, looked at me kind-of funny and said, “We’ve been looking at the Nixon presidency in school and I really don’t understand why so many people think he was a bad president”. From the mouth of babes…
Arnold heard Nixon’s words and it synched with Arnold’s views on taxes and politics.
I view checkmate in how it is used in chess. To check the other guy’s king, is to put his king in a position of danger, forcing the other guy to check his king and to protect it.
Checkmate then becomes, the successful completion of assassinating the king, when the king has no where else to go and no other bodyguards to rely upon.
While I fully support investigations to check into what was or was not known and done over the past six years, I agree with you that impeachment discussions are completely improper. Article II, Sec. 4 says that “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” At this point, there is no evidence of any of this. Arguably, there is evidence of errors in judgment that many might consider stupidity (I’m not saying that he’s stupid, I’m saying that his decisions may be described as stupid), the plain language shows that stupid decisions alone do not constitute impeachable offenses. I look at it as the executive business judgment rule – a lot of decisions are clear as a bell now that weren’t in 2003; but the president made the decisions based arguably on what was known then. I know some Democrats will say that the language of Section 4 reaches only to removal of office and you can impeach on other grounds, but I think this argument is as ineffective as the common article 3 argument as to who it applies to.
I fully support investigations based on what many view as an overly permissive congress over the past six years, but those investigations need to come with the agenda of finding out what was and was not known, not with the agenda of finding something to construe into an impeachable offense. If a good faith investigation reveals actual High Crimes and Misdemeanors, ONLY then should consideration of impeachment come into the fray.
It really is hilarious how Pelosi is now trying to say that there will be no impeachement. After everything Pelosi and Reid have said, how can they NOT impeach the President? Unless of course, Pelosi and Co are pulling a bait and switch on both the nuts roots and the American public. The nuts roots because Pelosi acted like they were going to get Bush, and the public because Pelosi accused the President of being such a Danger to the country. If Pelosi was telling the truth as she saw it, how can she now NOT impeach the President given how much of danger Bush is? Unless of course, when the Democrats are in power, then Bush isn’t a danger, but when the Democrats are out of power, then Bush needs to be impeached.