February 9, 2019: Impeach, Paralyzed By Legacy, Profile In Courage

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 45^th than the 17^th. '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.

_____________

1. The Atlantic. March 2019  Pages 74-85
2. Applebaum, Yoni “The Case for Impeachment” The Atlantic. March 2019. Page 83

March 8, 2016: When 6 Becomes 9, Fundamental Re-alignment, Material Accessories to the Dismantlement of the New Deal

 

“The Clinton’s have been material accessories to the dismantlement of the New Deal”

                        ----From “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

Economist and former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration posted this observation on Facebook this morning:

“America could be on the verge of a fundamental political realignment. Starting with the New Deal, the Democrats were the party of blue-collar workers while the Republicans represented the white-collar establishment. But the tables may be reversed in coming years.

To understand this possibility, consider that right now there are four political tribes in America -- each with its own nominee for President:

1. The Democratic establishment (suburban professionals, Democratic political insiders, liberal-leaning business executives, political centrists). Their candidate is Hillary Clinton.

2. The Republican anti-establishment Right (evangelicals and abortion foes, Tea Partiers, climate-change deniers, federal-government haters, and Fox News addicts). They want Ted Cruz.

3. The Republican anti-establishment isolationists and bigots (economic losers, foes of free trade, angry about immigrants, fearful of Muslims). They want Donald Trump.

4. The Democratic anti-establishment (worried most about widening inequality, concentrated wealth and power at the top, corporate control of our democracy, Wall Street’s excesses). They want Bernie Sanders.

The most prominent group without a political leader at the moment is the Republican establishment (corporate and Wall Street heads, coastal elites, mid-level executives, small-business owners, right-of-center retirees).

If Trump or Cruz becomes the Republican candidate, and Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, the Republican establishment will line up behind Hillary Clinton -- who will thereby become the candidate of the white collar American establishment (in uneasy coalition with African-Americans).

And Trump or Cruz will be the candidate of the white working class. The New Deal reversal will be complete.

What do you think?” (1)

This is precisely the analysis being put forward in this column, for the political center has given way and a new governing coalition will emerge from this election cycle.  How permanent it will be will depend upon who wins the election and what the next president does in office to cement the emergent coalition in power.  We had thought that this had happened after the 2008 cycle only to see that because the structural issues concerning the economy had not been addressed and the plight of the Middle Class had not been alleviated that the coalition that has elected Obama for two terms is unravelling.  The reasons for this have been previously delineated in these columns and will be subjects of continuing commentary but for our purposes here it is enough to say that, in the words of Bob Dylan, ‘the wheel’s still in spin’. 

Professor Reich is right in that what now looms if the Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz and the Democrats nominate Hillary is that we will have an effective swap of political positions as the ‘liberals’ abandon all pretense of ‘progressivism’ and abdicate their historic role as the voice of the ‘people’. The ‘populist’ revolt will by default fall into the hands of the political wrong—the right wing crypto fascists.  And therein lies the tragedy. 

There are reasons why the good professor, a friend of Hillary’s since she was 19 years old, has now openly endorsed the candidacy of Bernie Sanders for President.  He understands what is as stake here: not only a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party but a struggle, not unlike that which our ancestors faced, to lead the populist revolt in a progressive direction and in so doing save the underpinning of the middle class and the foundations of the republic itself. 

For the Clintons it will, however, represent a singular victory for Hillary especially.  Ever since her days as a ‘Goldwater girl’ in which she labored assiduously on behalf of the architect of dismantling the New Deal, Hillary and her husband Bill have labored mightily to transform the Democratic Party into ‘Bush-Lite’, if not the party of Wall Street.

Let there be no mistake about it. The Clintons have been material accessories to the dismantling of the New Deal, from the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the replacement of AFDC (passed by FDR in 1933) savaging in turn the social safety net, the failure to enforce anti-trust laws, the encouragement of mergers and acquisitions—especially in finance and energy, the wholesale incarceration and sponsorship of privatization, the awful trade agreements that have hollowed out our industrial base and destroyed our unions…ad nauseum.   Her nomination in the teeth of a full-fledged populist revolt that now spans the entire political spectrum would be a testament to the complete transformation of the Democratic Party from the party of FDR, JFK, and LBJ to the party of William McKinley, Warren Harding and Herbert Hoover. 

Welcome to the 21^st Century where 6 is 9.

-------

(1)   Robert Reich Facebook post of March 8, 2016.

 

April 27, 2008: Mischief of the Gods, Squaring the Circle, Postript from Manila

“He’s never going to shake her off”, wrote Maureen Dowd in last Wednesday’s New York Times, “not all by himself…She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have ‘what it takes’ to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place…how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran or stop Osama?”(1). Chris Matthews on his nightly “Hardball” program has likened this contest to a boxing match between two featherweights with neither contender possessing a knock-out punch. The implication, by extension, is that perhaps neither Democratic rival is truly presidential timber.

While Democrats “watch in horror as Hillary continues to scratch up the once silvery sheen on Obama” (1) and while John McCain consolidates his base it is perhaps too easy to dismiss this contest as one between political lightweights. What we may be witnessing instead is a struggle between two of the largest and most loyal constituent blocs within the Democratic coalition, each with clear and compelling claims to the party’s loyalty, and each strong enough to check-mate the other, in a titanic struggle to determine which social and political barrier will be broken first.

For some perverse reason, perhaps the simple caprice or the mendacity of mischievous deities, the Democratic Party has chosen this moment in history to square the circle of social injustice. In any case the traditional mold of the standard-bearer has been shattered opening the door to those who have loyally supported through thick and thin every Democratic nominee be he FDR or Walter Mondale. The party, and its faithful, cannot turn its back on the aspirations of such groups without appearing to be devouring its own—or, in Obama’s case, devouring its young. And so the party stands transfixed as this drama is played out on the national and international stage from one dreary primary to another, each contestant exhausted, each laying against the ropes, in the hope that the contest will play itself out and one or the other will win on points.

To win on points….that is the crux of the matter. The Matthew’s and the Dowd’s would love to see a knock-out. We have long been accustomed to such contests ending this way, but this year it was not to be.

In one corner is the heir to the champion; in many ways Hillary was Bill’s sparring partner, like Jimmy Ellis and Larry Holmes both sparring partners of Muhammad Ali and both later champions in their own right. In the other corner is the “Louisville Lip” himself reincarnated into the inscrutable Barack Obama, a political force capable of inspiring the crowd by transforming what is a very brutal “contact” sport into an act of poetic grace. Their fighting styles are markedly different, Hillary a tough scrappy fighter who needs to get in close and deliver body blows, Barach, like Ali, dances and moves, floating like a butterfly delivering his punches from long range. Each has demonstrated enormous strength in the primary campaign. Each has raised well over 150 million dollars and won over 15 million votes. Each representing major power blocs within the party is capable of knocking the other out. The question is why hasn’t it happened? As Ms. Dowd put it, “why can’t he close the deal?” (1).

Perhaps the first question is “why didn’t she close the deal?” It has become standard fodder on the talk circuit in recent weeks for the chattering class to ask rhetorically “he could have finished her in New Hampshire but couldn’t close the deal, he could have finished her on super Tuesday but couldn’t put her away, he could have finished her in Ohio but didn’t, and now Pennsylvania. Why can’t he seal the deal?” The problem with this critique is that it assumes that he has been the front-runner all this time. In fact he was not. She was still the odd-on-favorite through New Hampshire and everyone—including the Clinton camp—had assumed that Barack would meet his Waterloo on Super Tuesday. The more compelling question was—and still is—why didn’t she put him away? Why couldn’t Hillary seal the deal?

To answer that question one must go back once again to the Michigan results. Uncontested Hillary got only 55% of the vote. Obama, by becoming the voice of the other half of the party, quickly reached parity and so began a long struggle between two almost evenly matched forces within the party over who will be its champion.

Perhaps the best boxing metaphor is the Ali-Frazier trilogy. Here were two of the greatest heavyweight champions in the history of the sport, each possessing extraordinary power and boxing skill who were, nevertheless, locked in long and brutal contests to decide who would be champion. “The closest I’ve ever come to death”, said Ali after the “Thrilla in Manila”. So it was. Finally, at the end of this rubber-match to decide for all-time who was best, it came down to Joe Frazier finally not answering the bell and Ali collapsing on the ring floor. This is what we are witnessing, in my view, two very formidable political figures, each representing powerful constituencies, each equally matched and neither quite ready yet to throw in the towel. But the classic fight in Manila may be instructive in yet another way: both fighters left too much of themselves in the ring and were never thereafter the same. That is what worries the Democratic faithful at a time when neither the party nor the country can afford to lose.

Footnotes”

Http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=17hp&oref=slogin