We are paralyzed by the
legacy of Bill Clinton. Oh, I'm not talking about the repeal of
Glass-Steagall, nor his savaging of the social safety net. I'm
referring to his impeachment and the pig's breakfast that the
Generation of Swine had made
of the entire process. The Swine had
made such a hash of it, that the Democratic leadership from Nancy
Pelosi to the now retired Barney Frank, repeat the mantra that it is
too early to talk about impeachment, so terrified are they of the
consequences.
Democrats
are terrified because it was their experience, the leadership of the
party having been in office all those years ago to witness the
debacle, that when the president was impeached back in the nineties,
his popularity rose. And, being loathe to do anything to possibly
raise the popularity of this vulgarian, and risk his re-election in
the bargain, Democrats prefer to abdicate their sworn constitutional
obligation to impeach and end this bastard presidency, preferring
instead to let Robert Mueller make a case for his removal later, it
2020, at the ballot box.
All
that is well and good, but it assumes that Mueller's report sees the
light of day, since the Attorney General can move to restrict its
release and/or release it only in part. It also assumes that the
Democratic Party avoids another act of inspired stupidity by
nominating someone who can actually defeat this ignorant and
malignant jackass at the polls. Again, never underestimate the
ability of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory.
The
lessons of history are not always readily apparent, and the lesson of
Bill Clinton, as it is currently understood, should be no guide to
impeachment or its consequences.
This
month's edition of the venerable Atlantic magazine
hit my front porch today with a headline Impeach
emblazoned across the front
cover. It is time, Yoni Appelbaum writes, for Congress to judge the president's fitness to serve. (1)
Indeed, as I have noted for nearly two years in these columns, it
is. In fact, it is long past time.
The
Clinton case, like the Andrew Johnson case, are cited as examples of
impeachment proceedings that are viewed today as simple partisanship
run amok, and as failures as a remedy. Applebaum argues otherwise.
“The closest the
senate has ever come to removing a president was in 1868,” writes
Applebaum, “after Andrew Johnson was impeached on 11
counts. Remembered today as a lamentable exercise in
hyper-partisanship, in fact Johnson's impeachment functioned as the
Founders had intended, sparing the country from further depredations
of a president who had betrayed his most basic responsibilities. We
need to recover the real story of Johnson's impeachment, because it
offers the best evidence that the current president, too, must be
impeached.
“The case before the
United States in 1868 bears striking similarities to the case before
the country now—and no president in history more resembles the 45th
than the 17th. 'The president of the United States,' E.P.
Whipple wrote in this magazine in 1866, 'has so singular a
combination of defects for the office of a constitutional magistrate,
that he could have obtained the opportunity to misrule the nation
only by a visitation of providence. Insincere as well as stubborn,
cunning as well as unreasonable, vain as well as ill-tempered, greedy
of popularity as well as arbitrary in disposition, veering in his
mind as well as fixed in his will, he unites in his character the
seemingly opposite qualities of demagogue and autocrat.' Johnson, he
continued, was 'egotistic to the point of mental disease' and had
become 'the prey of intriguers and sycophants.'” (2)
Sound familiar?
Johnson's
battle with Congress was over the shape of post Civil War America.
The Republicans in Congress sought reconstruction, Johnson sought
some form of restoration. But was it a failure? Was it the
unwarranted partisan 'witch hunt' that historians—including John
Kennedy in his Profiles In Courage—make
it out to be? Kennedy, a student of history, was simply repeating
the conventional wisdom and citing the lone senator who made the
difference, as Johnson survived the trial in the senate by one vote.
But
Applebaum makes the case that this is, precisely, the wrong lesson to
be drawn from the proceedings—for proceedings they are. He points
out that the impeachment froze Johnson—as it would later Bill
Clinton in his tracks, forcing the sitting president to focus his
energy on survival and, therefore, limiting the damage done. For the first time presidential veto's were overridden, and the Congress instigated several constitutional amendments that forever changed the nature of the federal government, including the nature of citizenship itself. Johnson, in the aftermath, did not get the nomination of his party,
and Al Gore, following Clinton, lost the ensuing election despite a healthy
economy and a budget surplus for the first time in a generation.
Gleaning
historical lessons can be a tricky business, much like FDR's famous
court-packing scheme. Historians universally proclaim it a failure,
but the court never again ruled a major piece of New Deal legislation
unconstitutional. So, perhaps, it is best to look upon the
historical record with a more discerning eye.
It
is also important to note that the Clinton case falls under the
purview of the Generation of Swine, that
is, the 'Boomers'. Leave it to the Boomers to make a botch of the
process—or, more accurately, circumvent the process altogether.
Applebaum notes that the major defects of the Clinton proceedings
were that the charges did not rise to the occasion and that there
were no proceedings. Instead, the Congress was presented with a
report from Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and used this as the basis
for the constitutional remedy. Contrast this with Watergate, a
proceeding conducted under the auspices of the previous generation,
where there were months of hearings, testimony under the klieg
lights, so that the nation saw for itself the iniquities that lie
beneath. All that was discarded when the 'Boomers', led by Newt
Gingrich, came to power. By violating process, the Generation
of Swine, had turned the
proceedings into farce.
As
we speak the Democrats, with the 'Boomers' still at the helm, are
fixing to repeat the debacle. There are now articles of impeachment
placed before the house, as the house now awaits yet another report
from a Special Council. This turns process on it's head, and aborts
any real procedure. As I wrote to Congressman Henry Hyde, back when
Clinton was impeached, the conduct of the House Judiciary Committee
violated all norms of procedural due process and,
therefore, denied justice.
It
is, therefore, a mistake for the Democrats not to take up
impeachment. It should have been done when our Caesar Disgustus
fired FBI director Comey for his refusal to stop the investigations.
The country needs the process, not only to reveal the high crimes and
misdemeanors of this bastard presidency, but—by forcing our Caesar
Disgustus to spend his 'executive' time fighting for his very
political, legal and financial survival—to reign in on this
maladministration.
The proceedings, Applebaum notes, would also serve to lower the heated partisan debate and, like in Johnson's day, reduce the chances of civil revolt. It would do so because of the proceedings. By taking the conduct of this 'president' from the public debate and putting it before a quasi-judicial body--the Congress--the country would witness a serious deliberative procedure, revealing in its nature. It would take the debate from conjecture to fact. The proceedings would convey legitimacy upon judgement, narrowing the partisan divide and cooling the heated debate. Proceedings. We need proceedings. It was the lack of proceedings and due process that gave stench of illegitimacy to the Clinton affair. But the Generation of Swine, for whom experience is powerless to instruct, have drawn precisely the wrong conclusions.
It
is also a mistake to draw up articles before the hearings. Let the
hearings begin, and it is deeply troubling that Adam Schiff, chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, has agreed to question Michael
Cohen behind closed doors in secret session. No! This must be done
in the open, in broad daylight. The country must learn from the
principles how deep runs the rot and corruption.
And
only then can the case be made and put before the senate. It will be
up to the Republicans, then, to decide the fate our our would be
autocrat. The burden will be placed on them. It will then be up to
the Republican Party—the author of this mess—to answer at the bar
of history, and to decide if it wants to live or if it wants to die.
That would be a real Profile In Courage.
“An
Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”
Impeach
and Imprison.
_____________
The Atlantic.
March 2019 Pages 74-85
Applebaum,
Yoni “The Case for Impeachment” The Atlantic. March
2019. Page 83
