There is no reason to point partisan fingers in this article and every reason to expand the list to 10 or more.
Let me help.
6. Using impeachment as a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Nancy's impeach without a crime hubris is a broadside against our 3 branch Constitutional order and profoundly anti-democratic. Gingrich's Jacksonian fervor with Clinton began this noxious practice, but at least he had a crime (and DNA evidence), not just shoddy echo chamber news articles.
7. The rise of the Fourth (bureaucratic) and Fifth (single party media) estates. The Mandarins of the Potomac no longer even pretend to be responsive to democracy, are increasingly hyper-partisan, are immune to taxpayer concerns and happy to go full Weimar if the highest bidder comes their way. J. Edgar Mueller's Russia collusion juggernaut is but one minor example.
8. The No ID, no provisionals, no pre-registration, ballot harvesting, chain of custody free schemes in several states are not disingenuous voter access measures, they make fraud effectively unprosecutable. It is naive at best to believe these measures are designed to improve access to voting. Far more effective schemes, such as expanding in-person early voting stations, increase both access and security. States that have implemented Carter Baker 2004 measures are less vulnerable to fraud, but Democrats actively oppose Presidents Carter's measures. Ironically, these same Democrats often employ double and triple address and identity verification methods in their own caucuses, but have no problem with a free-for-all in general elections. Kind of telling.
9. Billions of dollars spent by oligarchs in transparently partisan efforts that are listed as "not for profits" and otherwise exempt from campaign limitations. Participatory democracy has become and afterthought as entities pour funds into lobbyists and promotional schemes that go directly counter to the interests and beliefs of their stakeholders.
10. The FEC is on the case of every individual who pushes the bounds of a few thousand dollar limit or violates complex campaign laws, but turns a blind eye to multi-billion corporations and institutions that engage in transparent partisan cheerleading and in kind contributions with billions.
"Crimes" are not required for impeachment. That's what courts are for. Any constitutional scholar will tell you this. In fact, the entire reason impeachment exists is to protect against abuse of power and violation of the public trust that may not technically be illegal because of the enourmous power granted to certain public officials. The idea that a crime is necessary was blatant propaganda put forth by people unqualified to speak on such matters, like Matthew Whitaker and Alan Dershowitz, and then propagated by Republican politicians and pundits.
And the Mueller commission was instituted by Trump's own Justice Department for entirely legitimate reasons. And they did their jobs honorably. Anyone who observed Trump's comically guilty behavior before and during the commission and concluded that this was somehow not in the public's interest has a very blinkered view of civic responsibility.
Article 4 of Section 2: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I was opposed to the Clinton impeachment for several reasons, most notably the availability of a remedy after the term and the fact lying in a court case is not functionally related to his duties. Some argued, perhaps rightly, that Clinton was a rapist but that was not where Paula Jones went in her case. The notion that "abuse of power" or "violation of the public trust" is grounds for impeachment is only pertinent when referring to bribery or treason, both crimes in their own right but also violations of fiduciary duty. No, sorry, Nancy's gambit was 100% political and the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence which is problematic in our system because we do not have a head of state that can dissolve a rogue parliament (a right the Queen of England held until only a few decades ago).
And there is nothing problematic about impeachment. A system without it would be one in which the executive had the power of a dictator. And Nancy Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump - she feared the same backlash that Republicans got over Clinton. She ultimately had to because Trump's abuses were so brazen.
As Constitutional scholars will tell you, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning at the time the constitution was written, and it does not refer to prosecutable crimes. It specifically refers to abuse of office by public officials.
"Constitutional scholars" don't agree on many of the details on how impeachment should go about. There has been debate about it since it was written into the constitution, including by the people who wrote it.
Regardless of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, Arena's point that the impeachment was used "as a parliamentary vote of no confidence", still holds. Regardless of whether crimes should be the standard of impeachment, impeachment should not be used as a means of asserting the arbitrary will of a faction and overturning an election. As Hamilton said in Federalist paper 65:
"The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Unfortunately, that danger presented itself in the impeachment of Trump.
You forgot to mention the Democratic Party's tactic of rigging their own primary elections so that the choice of the candidate is driven primarily by the party elites rather than the party base. For all the Republicans do to "undermine Democracy", they have not yet to my knowledge expressed in court the notion that they are not obligated to run a fair election. Indeed, one of the contributing factors of Trump getting elected in 2016 is due to the fact they did not undermine the will of their voters even though he was very unpopular among the Republican elite. Bernie Sanders, however, was buried by the Democratic Party in 2016 and 2020. The DNC was even taken to court about it, and they essentially admitted to rigging the election and argued that they are not bound to run a fair election. That is on record, in court. The Democratic Party does not care about democracy in their own primaries.
It is very peculiar, the concern some Democrats have about the Republican Party's efforts to "undermine democracy" when the party they express loyalty to has explicitly stated on public record that democracy doesn't matter to them.
"As a party, it has spearheaded the decline of American democracy."
That, of course is laughable. American democracy didn't just start declining when Republicans started "politicizing election procedures". A), America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Democracy was undermined when the constitution was first written -- intentionally. B) America had a civil war in which one faction, led by the Democratic Party, fought another faction, led by the Republican Party over whether America should continue slavery, which is certainly not particularly compatible with democracy. Furthermore, after the civil war, the Democratic Party then nursed a terrorist organization, the KKK, with a direct purpose to violently restrict the democratic participation of black people in the political process, and not only because they were more likely to vote Republican, but because they thought white people should properly rule and black people were monkeys.
I'll leave you with a quote from John Adams on democracy:
" Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never."
I agree with your first point on the DNC's undermining democracy in its own primaries. Thanks for bringing that up.
I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has. First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). Second, I'm not sure how the status of the US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?
I'm also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats. I've seen this a few times. I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.
“I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has.”
I brought it up because the author, and many other people, often talk about democracy as if it is sacred. Furthermore, the author's argument is premised on the idea that more democracy is a better country. Which is false. He may as well have brought up the electoral college and how the Republicans generally support using it rather than a popular vote for the presidential election. Surprised he didn’t.
“ First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). ”
Lol. Do you think I was referring to the continent?
“ US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?”
His references to democracy were false pieties. And also brings us to...
“ I’m also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats.”
Because the author made the claim that the Republican Party “spearheaded” the "undermining of democracy". The civil war is the shiny example of why that claim is ridiculous. What is bizarre is that Democrats still pretend that the Democratic Party started in 1964.
“ I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. ”
Yah that is a stupid question because the people who ran the Democratic Party after the civil war were people who wanted to keep black people in chains and party leaders of neither think that today. And what the democratic voters of that time would do today is as relevant as asking what party Islamic jihadists would probably register for today. Neither party supports jihadists but jihadists would probably still prefer one party over the other for extrinsic reasons. But just to note, Richard Spencer, who was one of the people who organized the "Unite the Right" rally, and considered by so many to be the arch white nationalist supported Biden.
“ For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.”
No it is wrong for people who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party to defend its past when that party lies about its past on its own website, claiming that it has been fighting for civil rights for 200 years. It is wrong to defend an organization with a horrific past that is currently trying to use the past as a means of convincing the populace that policies need to be enacted to fix the imbalances of injustice from the past — the past that they were centrally responsible for defending and creating and today still derive their wealth and power directly from. I have written a thorough, intricate, and nuanced substack post on this topic. I encourage you to read it. I wrote it precisely because how frequently people come to the defense of the Democratic Party’s past and express the sentiment that it should be morally absolved of that past. That is a mistaken judgement, and one that people who are rational will come to accept as mistaken if they are given the facts and the perspective— people who are contrarian trolls, sycophants, or hopeless party zombies though will continue to make their stupid remarks in defense of the Party of Slavery's past.
I don't disagree with what Rachman said, but some suggestions for how the Democrats are supposed to fight how the Republicans are undermining democracy without undermining democracy themselves would be helpful.
All we have to do is figure out how to exit the revolving, escalating moral panics that is our current national discourse. It is impossible for Democrats to do this on their own -- and even attempting to de-escalate is typically held by the rank and file to be capitulation. The same can be said for Republicans.
I think we need a crisis of some kind where the right people and the right ideas are in place (or ripe for placement) to knock us out of the gravity well of our mutual demonization. We need honest disagreements on how to solve problems rather than using problems as a club with which we beat our opponents, deriding their immorality while showcasing our own morality.
Gerrymandering is a great scapegoat, but the Great Sort is a bigger driver of the decline in competitive districts. If more Democrats would move out to live amongst the Great Unwashed in flyover country, and Republicans move into cities and learn to coexist with the Urbane Glitterati, the US would be in a much better place.
There is no reason to point partisan fingers in this article and every reason to expand the list to 10 or more.
Let me help.
6. Using impeachment as a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Nancy's impeach without a crime hubris is a broadside against our 3 branch Constitutional order and profoundly anti-democratic. Gingrich's Jacksonian fervor with Clinton began this noxious practice, but at least he had a crime (and DNA evidence), not just shoddy echo chamber news articles.
7. The rise of the Fourth (bureaucratic) and Fifth (single party media) estates. The Mandarins of the Potomac no longer even pretend to be responsive to democracy, are increasingly hyper-partisan, are immune to taxpayer concerns and happy to go full Weimar if the highest bidder comes their way. J. Edgar Mueller's Russia collusion juggernaut is but one minor example.
8. The No ID, no provisionals, no pre-registration, ballot harvesting, chain of custody free schemes in several states are not disingenuous voter access measures, they make fraud effectively unprosecutable. It is naive at best to believe these measures are designed to improve access to voting. Far more effective schemes, such as expanding in-person early voting stations, increase both access and security. States that have implemented Carter Baker 2004 measures are less vulnerable to fraud, but Democrats actively oppose Presidents Carter's measures. Ironically, these same Democrats often employ double and triple address and identity verification methods in their own caucuses, but have no problem with a free-for-all in general elections. Kind of telling.
9. Billions of dollars spent by oligarchs in transparently partisan efforts that are listed as "not for profits" and otherwise exempt from campaign limitations. Participatory democracy has become and afterthought as entities pour funds into lobbyists and promotional schemes that go directly counter to the interests and beliefs of their stakeholders.
10. The FEC is on the case of every individual who pushes the bounds of a few thousand dollar limit or violates complex campaign laws, but turns a blind eye to multi-billion corporations and institutions that engage in transparent partisan cheerleading and in kind contributions with billions.
"Crimes" are not required for impeachment. That's what courts are for. Any constitutional scholar will tell you this. In fact, the entire reason impeachment exists is to protect against abuse of power and violation of the public trust that may not technically be illegal because of the enourmous power granted to certain public officials. The idea that a crime is necessary was blatant propaganda put forth by people unqualified to speak on such matters, like Matthew Whitaker and Alan Dershowitz, and then propagated by Republican politicians and pundits.
And the Mueller commission was instituted by Trump's own Justice Department for entirely legitimate reasons. And they did their jobs honorably. Anyone who observed Trump's comically guilty behavior before and during the commission and concluded that this was somehow not in the public's interest has a very blinkered view of civic responsibility.
Article 4 of Section 2: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I was opposed to the Clinton impeachment for several reasons, most notably the availability of a remedy after the term and the fact lying in a court case is not functionally related to his duties. Some argued, perhaps rightly, that Clinton was a rapist but that was not where Paula Jones went in her case. The notion that "abuse of power" or "violation of the public trust" is grounds for impeachment is only pertinent when referring to bribery or treason, both crimes in their own right but also violations of fiduciary duty. No, sorry, Nancy's gambit was 100% political and the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence which is problematic in our system because we do not have a head of state that can dissolve a rogue parliament (a right the Queen of England held until only a few decades ago).
And there is nothing problematic about impeachment. A system without it would be one in which the executive had the power of a dictator. And Nancy Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump - she feared the same backlash that Republicans got over Clinton. She ultimately had to because Trump's abuses were so brazen.
As Constitutional scholars will tell you, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning at the time the constitution was written, and it does not refer to prosecutable crimes. It specifically refers to abuse of office by public officials.
"Constitutional scholars" don't agree on many of the details on how impeachment should go about. There has been debate about it since it was written into the constitution, including by the people who wrote it.
Regardless of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, Arena's point that the impeachment was used "as a parliamentary vote of no confidence", still holds. Regardless of whether crimes should be the standard of impeachment, impeachment should not be used as a means of asserting the arbitrary will of a faction and overturning an election. As Hamilton said in Federalist paper 65:
"The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Unfortunately, that danger presented itself in the impeachment of Trump.
You forgot to mention the Democratic Party's tactic of rigging their own primary elections so that the choice of the candidate is driven primarily by the party elites rather than the party base. For all the Republicans do to "undermine Democracy", they have not yet to my knowledge expressed in court the notion that they are not obligated to run a fair election. Indeed, one of the contributing factors of Trump getting elected in 2016 is due to the fact they did not undermine the will of their voters even though he was very unpopular among the Republican elite. Bernie Sanders, however, was buried by the Democratic Party in 2016 and 2020. The DNC was even taken to court about it, and they essentially admitted to rigging the election and argued that they are not bound to run a fair election. That is on record, in court. The Democratic Party does not care about democracy in their own primaries.
https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/
It is very peculiar, the concern some Democrats have about the Republican Party's efforts to "undermine democracy" when the party they express loyalty to has explicitly stated on public record that democracy doesn't matter to them.
"As a party, it has spearheaded the decline of American democracy."
That, of course is laughable. American democracy didn't just start declining when Republicans started "politicizing election procedures". A), America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Democracy was undermined when the constitution was first written -- intentionally. B) America had a civil war in which one faction, led by the Democratic Party, fought another faction, led by the Republican Party over whether America should continue slavery, which is certainly not particularly compatible with democracy. Furthermore, after the civil war, the Democratic Party then nursed a terrorist organization, the KKK, with a direct purpose to violently restrict the democratic participation of black people in the political process, and not only because they were more likely to vote Republican, but because they thought white people should properly rule and black people were monkeys.
I'll leave you with a quote from John Adams on democracy:
" Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never."
I agree with your first point on the DNC's undermining democracy in its own primaries. Thanks for bringing that up.
I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has. First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). Second, I'm not sure how the status of the US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?
I'm also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats. I've seen this a few times. I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.
“I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has.”
I brought it up because the author, and many other people, often talk about democracy as if it is sacred. Furthermore, the author's argument is premised on the idea that more democracy is a better country. Which is false. He may as well have brought up the electoral college and how the Republicans generally support using it rather than a popular vote for the presidential election. Surprised he didn’t.
“ First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). ”
Lol. Do you think I was referring to the continent?
“ US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?”
His references to democracy were false pieties. And also brings us to...
“ I’m also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats.”
Because the author made the claim that the Republican Party “spearheaded” the "undermining of democracy". The civil war is the shiny example of why that claim is ridiculous. What is bizarre is that Democrats still pretend that the Democratic Party started in 1964.
“ I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. ”
Yah that is a stupid question because the people who ran the Democratic Party after the civil war were people who wanted to keep black people in chains and party leaders of neither think that today. And what the democratic voters of that time would do today is as relevant as asking what party Islamic jihadists would probably register for today. Neither party supports jihadists but jihadists would probably still prefer one party over the other for extrinsic reasons. But just to note, Richard Spencer, who was one of the people who organized the "Unite the Right" rally, and considered by so many to be the arch white nationalist supported Biden.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/socialist-white-supremacist-throws-his-support-behind-biden
“ For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.”
No it is wrong for people who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party to defend its past when that party lies about its past on its own website, claiming that it has been fighting for civil rights for 200 years. It is wrong to defend an organization with a horrific past that is currently trying to use the past as a means of convincing the populace that policies need to be enacted to fix the imbalances of injustice from the past — the past that they were centrally responsible for defending and creating and today still derive their wealth and power directly from. I have written a thorough, intricate, and nuanced substack post on this topic. I encourage you to read it. I wrote it precisely because how frequently people come to the defense of the Democratic Party’s past and express the sentiment that it should be morally absolved of that past. That is a mistaken judgement, and one that people who are rational will come to accept as mistaken if they are given the facts and the perspective— people who are contrarian trolls, sycophants, or hopeless party zombies though will continue to make their stupid remarks in defense of the Party of Slavery's past.
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious
I don't disagree with what Rachman said, but some suggestions for how the Democrats are supposed to fight how the Republicans are undermining democracy without undermining democracy themselves would be helpful.
All we have to do is figure out how to exit the revolving, escalating moral panics that is our current national discourse. It is impossible for Democrats to do this on their own -- and even attempting to de-escalate is typically held by the rank and file to be capitulation. The same can be said for Republicans.
I think we need a crisis of some kind where the right people and the right ideas are in place (or ripe for placement) to knock us out of the gravity well of our mutual demonization. We need honest disagreements on how to solve problems rather than using problems as a club with which we beat our opponents, deriding their immorality while showcasing our own morality.
Gerrymandering is a great scapegoat, but the Great Sort is a bigger driver of the decline in competitive districts. If more Democrats would move out to live amongst the Great Unwashed in flyover country, and Republicans move into cities and learn to coexist with the Urbane Glitterati, the US would be in a much better place.