Memo to Progressives re: Impeachment

Many Progressives are eager to start impeachment proceedings against President Trump. It consumed a large share of the Sunday shows this week.

There is some speculation as to whether Trump actually wants to be impeached, believing that the impeachment will fail to carry the Senate. Given his record of wanting to show he is surrounded by enemies, I tend to believe that this is true.

Nevertheless, I have a slightly different take on the matter. I believe that an impeachment could lead to successful conviction. However, this could leave the country better or worse off, depending upon how it is conducted.

Progressives have demonstrated indifference to process. You want your result, and don’t much care how you get it. You reinforced your reputation with your conduct during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. However, we are at a crossroads, and I am not prepared to sit by and say nothing while the country spirals out of anyone’s control. So here goes.

The Real Jury

If the House passes articles of impeachment, the real jury consists of the 40-45% of the American people who consistently support Trump. You have to convince at least half of these people that you have a case with genuine merit. Otherwise, even if you did swing Republican Senators to vote a conviction, two out of five people in the country would see the action as a coup d’état. This would only accelerate the divisions in the country, possibly to a critical level.

If the Trump supporters believe that you are impeaching to nullify an election, they will repay you in kind. Anybody remember the campaign to prevent Robert Bork becoming a Supreme Court justice, and the consequences of that?

Furthermore, Trump only keeps Republicans in the Senate in line because they fear the electoral consequences of defying him. Remember Mark Sanford? Remember Mia Love? Republicans would be shorn of any fear if Trump’s base of support visibly cracked.

Stop Preaching to the Choir

Please stop carrying on about the 2016 election, supposed collusion in said election and whatever else you keep saying to make yourselves feel better about losing the election. These stories are completely unpersuasive to people who voted for Trump. Retelling them just defeats your efforts. It is completely counterproductive behavior.

While you’re at it, put a muzzle on people like Tom Steyer. Not only is failing to lead a Progressive agenda not an impeachable offence, but some of us actually approve of decisions such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. Some of us actually don’t believe we were ever in the Paris Climate Accord, because it was a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate. This points to a larger question about the relationship between Congress and the President, which I shall get to later.

Similarly, there are a whole lot of people who don’t like immigration from Mexico. I understand you believe that these people are racially biased against Hispanics, and when I read American history, I have to conclude there is a long and sorry record that supports your claims. Nevertheless, you are not going to build a coalition by telling people you want to win over how ignorant and evil they are. Issues around treatment of immigrants, legal or illegal, are a non-starter for this purpose.

Please do not wrap yourselves in the mantle of the Public Interest. When people start talking about the Public Interest, we start counting the silverware. Who is qualified to be the High Priest who can interpret the Public Interest? This line is an immediate disqualifier. Click — we’re not listening anymore.

So What Is the Focus?

The real problem with Donald Trump is that he thinks he’s a king. He does not distinguish between his person and his office. He thinks the Attorney General is there to protect him personally. He demands loyalty to his person, not to Constitutional processes. He sees no reason why he should not enrich himself from the opportunities available to him as President. He threatens to take Anglo-American political development back four hundred years.

However, this is not the first time a president has been accused of setting himself up as a monarch.

Political cartoon critical of President Andrew Jackson, c. 1833.

Andrew Jackson appalled the Boston Brahmins and First Families of Virginia, who considered him a hick from the sticks, totally unsuitable for high office. Before he was President, he was a planter and a land speculator. He had killed a man in a duel. He had led an expedition into Florida and caused an international incident when he captured and executed two British agents.

As President, Jackson used his powers to promote the spoils system, where the elected officials can replace civil servants with office seekers from their own party. He aggressively promoted Indian removal from the southern states; estimates of Cherokee dead on the Trail of Tears run as high as 4,000, out of 18,000 persons starting the journey.

You may believe that comparison with Andrew Jackson sets a low bar. Nevertheless, it provides some framework for discussion. How does Trump’s behavior compare with Jackson’s? How much of your dissatisfaction can be attributed to:

• The fact that you don’t like him?
• The fact that he his taking actions that you politically oppose?
• Specific behaviors that are so far outside the norms of proper Presidential conduct that they are manifestly unacceptable?

The first two categories are not grounds for impeachment. To the extent that there are items in the last category, how do you make the case to his supporters?

Power to the President

For about a century, Congress has been giving away its powers with both hands to the President and to independent agencies. The last time the Supreme Court dared to nullify a law for unconstitutional delegation of congressional prerogatives was 1935. Now, all of a sudden, we have this new interest in congressional oversight. What changed?

You could make the case justifying this. You could even argue that you regret how far out of balance the separation of powers has become. Congress is not just a co-equal branch of government; it is the first among equals. Half of the original Constitution is about Congress. The President is there to execute the will of Congress.

However, you are going to get a lot of objections, basically arguing that you are only acting because now you have a President taking aggressive political actions you don’t like. That cannot be grounds for impeachment, because it can be turned right around and used on your guy next time.

You thought it was great when President Obama wrote executive orders to enact laws he couldn’t get through Congress. So now their guy writes executive orders to undo the executive orders your guy wrote. Today is a great day to rediscover process.

Persuasion

You are going to have to rediscover persuasion, which is becoming a lost art in America. Calling the Trump supporters names and shouting that everybody knows what Trump is doing is wrong are well-worn tactics, but they won’t do the job.

Effective persuasion requires you to get into the operating reality of the other person. You have to look at the world the way he does, not the way he ought to look at the world if he were the intelligent, caring person you are.

Rashida Tlaib was on Meet the Press this morning. One of the charges she made was:

I mean he has not complied with the United States Constitution when he took the oath of office by divesting in his businesses. So we have an upgraded version of pay-to-play. So, when I’m on the ground right now in my district fighting against the T-Mobile and Sprint merger, T-Mobile is turning around, spending $195,000 at the Trump Hotel in D.C. as again, an upgraded version of pay-to-play to get access to the most powerful corridor to power in our country, the president’s office.

This is sufficiently succinct to work as a talking point on the Sunday shows, where you don’t have enough time to educate people. But, when you take this show on the road, you must plan to educate people. You will meet people who don’t understand pay-to-play, or even who don’t believe there is anything wrong with pay-to-play. Either you are going to convince them that it is a problem, or you are going to toss them into the basket of deplorables.

Also remember that Joseph P. Kennedy had sufficient foresight to make his money as a rumrunner and stock manipulator ahead of time, so that when his sons wanted to run for public office, they would already have family money. Not every family has a paterfamilias with that kind of foresight. Some of the people you talk to are going to take the approach that, since it takes money to obtain public office, if you don’t come from a family that already has money, you have to be able to get it yourself. You will want to have thought about your response to that.

Read Hillbilly Elegy if you have to. Even better, read The Great Revolt by Salena Zito and Brad Todd. Listen to Stanley Greenberg; he’s a Progressive, and he wants to help you.

We are at a crossroads. The next several years will determine whether American political life gets better or gets worse. Not only does it matter whether you get Trump impeached; the method matters even more.