SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
I came late to the piece by Michael Tomasky in last Sunday’s Washington Post that argues against the impeachment of President Bush or Vice President Cheney–or even discussion of the possibility—on the grounds that it would be bad for liberals and the Democratic Party. “[T]he I-word is being tossed about pretty freely in some left-leaning circles these days,” Tomasky writes. “Today, my e-mail inbox bubbles with notices of fresh and scandalous counts just waiting to be added to the bill of indictment.”
Tomasky, who at one point labels the pro-impeachment crowd as “the [Cindy] Sheehan camp,” argues that impeachment is “not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake,” and would badly harm the party’s “otherwise excellent chances for winning congressional seats and the White House in 2008.”
Let’s assume for the moment that Tomasky is right in arguing that pushing for impeachment is a political loser (and I’m not sure that’s correct given what polls on the issue show). But Mike, even if that’s true, should the decision on this matter be based on whether impeachment is good for the Democratic Party and liberals? Shouldn’t the relevant question here be whether the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors—grounds for impeachment under the constitution?
There are other arguments I have with the Post piece. Tomasky acknowledges that Republicans didn’t suffer politically when they impeached President Bill Clinton in 1999 and even “retained control of both houses of Congress” in the following year’s election. But he says the reverse would happen now because the Republicans are ruthless whereas “defensive Democrats” are always quick to scamper back to the safety of “bland [political] terrain.” So maybe the Democrats should be more like the Republicans instead of following Tomasky’s advice and scurrying back to bland terrain.
He also says with alarm that the country is evenly split on the question of impeachment, and predicts a bloody fight if impeachment goes forward. “Do we really want to drag the country through that?” he asks. “The thought of it—months of rancor, name-calling and mud-slinging that would almost certainly end in defeat for the impeachers—depresses me beyond words.” I would expect (and hope) that the 2008 elections will be filled with rancor, name-calling and mud-slinging. Should the Democrats spare the country that and just concede defeat now?
Finally, Tomasky blasts the administration, writing, “Bush and Cheney—and conservatism in general—have wrecked our civic institutions and darkened our civic impulses. Nothing is beyond politicization . . . When everything is subordinate to politics, civic institutions and impulses suffer.” But the whole crux of Tomasky’s argument is that in the case of impeachment, everything should be subordinate to a politics, specifically an analysis of what’s best for the Democratic Party.
In the end, impeachment should be pursued if Bush violated the constitution and put aside if he did not. No one knows for sure what the political consequences of that course would be but that’s not the fundamental question. And here’s one thing we do know: when the Democrats decided not to seek the impeachment of President Reagan following the Iran/contra affair, the result was the weakening congressional branch and enablement of the all-powerful executive as practiced under George W. Bush.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”