Pleiku, part two

I have a confession to make. I spent thirty years in DC. That makes me a swamp creature. I was part of the deep-state back when we just called it the bureaucracy; deep-state sounds so much sexier, no? Let me re-engage my deep-state, lizard brain and try to explain what’s going on.

The intersection between high-minded idealism and cynical political calculation exists at the power of position. You can have all the right ideas and best policies and accomplish nothing if you lack the power of office and majority. Likewise, the one who wins can implement even the most hare-brained schemes. You would like to think that the best ideas always win, but we know this is not the case.

Why would Speaker Pelosi change her mind on impeachment? Remember, she and Senator Mitch McConnell are among the most successful Congressional leaders in American history. People hate them for their ruthless pursuit of their respective agendas. What is she up to?

• First, impeachment rallies the Democratic base, especially in the suburban districts which went from purple to blue in 2018. It might imperil some of the new members in districts which voted for Trump in 2016 but elected a Democrat in 2018; she left those members an out by allowing them to vote their consciences, but their fate is probably sealed. I believe she has read the tea-leaves, done the math, and thinks she has secured the Democrats a majority in the House after 2020. Think I’m wrong? Have you noticed all the red state, safe-seat Republicans in the House who are retiring (twenty at last count)? They don’t intend to sit around for another two years as powerless ranking members.
• Second, impeachment plays for time and moves the spotlight off the party’s Presidential nomination. Yes, it does pull several Senators off the campaign circuit, but it also gives them a chance to shine during the Senate trial. Meanwhile, the party may be able to pare down the list and start to get behind a nominee. While Speaker Pelosi would prefer a Democratic President, arranging for one is not her job, so if impeachment retains the House majority but loses the Presidency . . . “Oh, well!” as my lovely wife likes to say!
• Third, it lays a trap. The President will trumpet (sorry, couldn’t resist) his exoneration in the Senate, but the obstruction claim will only be considered by the Supreme Court between March and June next year. If they hold (as they did for Nixon and Clinton) that the President must release information, his refusal would come just before the election, and even if he won re-election, it would set the stage for another impeachment!
• Finally, it pacifies the progressive Democratic members who have bridled at the Speaker’s reticence to impeach, and willingness to work (e.g., USMCA, appropriations, Space force) with the President. No Speaker wants a loud caucus constantly tweeting against her. She can tell them to sit down and relax–and if it doesn’t work, she can (figuratively) purge them as the cause of the disaster.

I will bet the Speaker has a few more political reasons up her sleeve: I have only a half-lizard brain, and she is a political genius. If you want to believe this is all about military aid to Ukraine, God bless you. I missed where all that fervor was when the Russians were actually invading Ukraine, and all we sent was non-lethal support. This was politics (first Trump, then the Democrats), pure and simple.

Why did the Democrats focus on impeachment? From the election night when the nightmare began, many Democrats could not stand the notion of another moment of a Trump presidency. That is why they started from the conclusion (getting him out of office) and looked for justifications. Remember the discussion of the 25th amendment (removing the President for incapacity)? Much the same thing.

What should they have done? Before I answer that question, I want to remind all my friends that I believe that President Trump should have resigned long ago, when he realized he was not suited to this peculiar job. Yes, he won the position, but it’s not El Jefe, it’s more the persuader-in-chief. He should have said this isn’t right for me (he probably would have said “it’s not good enough for me”) and moved on. As a businessman, he certainly knows that not every leader is right for every situation. But he didn’t.

So-o -o -o -o ? The Democrats should have made it clear his mafia-esque phone conversation with President Zelensky was beyond the pale. They should have censured him, a symbolic punishment which only Andrew Jackson received. Don’t knock this as only symbolic: this impeachment will end up being only symbolic. They should have passed a bill defining –using the President’s own language in the phone transcript–this type of activity as a “high crime or misdemeanor” as used in the Constitution, thereby notifying him (and his successors) that any repeat of such activity would result in impeachment. Imagine the latter scenario: forcing Congressional Republicans in the House and Senate to either support the Bill or explain why this behavior is ok with them! It’s one thing to vote against impeachment or conviction; it’s another thing altogether to vote defending unethical behavior in general. Imagine President Trump with that Bill on his desk, forced to either swallow his ego and sign it or veto it and face being overturned.

The Democrats lacked imagination, because they remain obsessed with a single thing: removing the President. It is not a condition unique to them: the Republicans did the same thing with President Clinton. For all the evil that Richard Nixon did, he had real respect for the office, and his resignation–short of impeachment–was laudatory even if forced. He did the right thing in the end. If Bill Clinton had a shred of human decency, he would have resigned when his affair with an intern became public. If he had any respect for the office, he would have resigned before lying under oath. If his Republican opponents had any imagination, they would have censured him and passed a Bill defining the reception of oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office as behavior so disgusting it qualifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

After all, that is what Congress does: it makes laws. Imagine Congressional Democrats defending that one; picture President Clinton facing the same Hobson’s choice.

But no, here we are. The streetcar is pulling up to the station. The outcome is predetermined and will satisfy no one. We have set several terrible precedents: looking for reasons justifying impeachment, impeaching before the relevant court cases are completed, and simply making impeachment a more routine thing. Based on recent political history, I guarantee the next Republican-majority House under a Democratic presidency will be a real circus. Meanwhile, the morning news brings word that the House may simply hold on to the Bill of Impeachment and not forward it to the Senate. I wonder how many additional weeks of coverage they can get out of that move?

The Progressives’ singular focus on President Trump is misguided, if only because he is a symptom, not the problem. Impeachment, even if it succeeded in removing the President, would not resolve the issue. There is a political realignment going on in the Western world, and until it shakes out, there will be little tranquility. But that is a topic for another post, another day.

Some have complained that President Trump thinks he’s a king. Remember Emerson’s quote: “When you strike at a King, you must kill him.”