This is something of a broken window argument. You aren't impeaching him because it will work to get you elected, or because you can succeed in barring him from office, or even to force all the senators who vote to not convict him to put that vote on the record.
Mostly you impeach him to show that there are still barriers that will be def…
This is something of a broken window argument. You aren't impeaching him because it will work to get you elected, or because you can succeed in barring him from office, or even to force all the senators who vote to not convict him to put that vote on the record.
Mostly you impeach him to show that there are still barriers that will be defended between the US Government and the next, more competent authoritarian who is waiting for that sign of surrender that is being suggested is the best course of action.
Even if none of that were true, you impeach him because it is the right thing to do, and it is good governance, and it fulfills your oath of office.
Exactly! Not holding Trump accountable for his crimes means we don't even pretend to be a nation of laws. I respect the author's other work, but I am very disappointed with the reasoning in this article.
If this impeachment held him accountable, I would agree. But when it fails to convict it will just show that we were unable to hold even the most obvious traitor to democracy accountable. It will show that America did not hold him accountable.
America has shown that over and over again. There will be no novelty or gain in this instantiation whatever.
The best one could say is that they did the right thing or that they did not. Having the vote forces Senators on the record on that account. No hiding.
You are right; America sort of did. But you could say America held everyone who loses an election accountable. It's no stamp of immorality. It just means your popularity is <50%. And the election was not about the insurrection, which came after. And if you think America did and the Senate won't, then what's the point of failing to convict?
I want the names of the people who refuse to convict a true wannabe dictator to live in infamy. And I do believe the majority of Republicans in Congress are immoral hypocrites.
Of course, you or me wanting something does not mean that demanding it or organizing for it is good for democracy. I want to limit income to 100 times the average, just as Huey Long advocated. But that doesn't mean that either I or the Democrats should make that demand any time soon.
What's good for democracy or America is a tougher question than "what do I want." And that's the difference between someone like FDR who gets stuff done and radicals who set us back.
I think we should not be so sure we are enforcing norms and laws when there is no bipartisan agreement that is what is happening. Starr and Hyde told themselves they were enforcing laws and norms. Instead they were setting us on the road to partisan impeachments on a regular basis.
That's a valuable point; it is certainly wise to interrogate one's own judgement when there is no consensus. Having so interrogated my own, it is quite clear that Mr. Trump is responsible for the attack on Congress, and attempted continuously to damage and corrupt our democratic process over the 2+ months after the election. The "norms and laws" at stake are truth and the republic's democratic core. One party's representatives largely do not agree (at least not in public), and I judge them wrong.
Comparing this to the Clinton impeachment seems misguided. That was a largely politically motivated investigation; looking at the votes for the Clinton impeachment, a number of Republicans voted not to impeach, and *also* voted not to convict. A few Democrats voted to impeach (though fewer than Republicans voted *not* to impeach), and zero Democrats voted to convict.
The Clinton impeachment also did not begin with an attack on the Capitol after two months of corrosive lies about election fraud.
I think that case can be made that Trump bears responsibility for the attack. I even mostly agree with it. But I also think it is not a slam dunk matter, which is the only threshold worth applying to impeachment. Perhaps his second impeachment would not have been as contentious if the first one had not been so transparently politically motivated--at least as much as Clinton's.
This is something of a broken window argument. You aren't impeaching him because it will work to get you elected, or because you can succeed in barring him from office, or even to force all the senators who vote to not convict him to put that vote on the record.
Mostly you impeach him to show that there are still barriers that will be defended between the US Government and the next, more competent authoritarian who is waiting for that sign of surrender that is being suggested is the best course of action.
Even if none of that were true, you impeach him because it is the right thing to do, and it is good governance, and it fulfills your oath of office.
Exactly! Not holding Trump accountable for his crimes means we don't even pretend to be a nation of laws. I respect the author's other work, but I am very disappointed with the reasoning in this article.
If this impeachment held him accountable, I would agree. But when it fails to convict it will just show that we were unable to hold even the most obvious traitor to democracy accountable. It will show that America did not hold him accountable.
America has shown that over and over again. There will be no novelty or gain in this instantiation whatever.
The best one could say is that they did the right thing or that they did not. Having the vote forces Senators on the record on that account. No hiding.
America dd hold him accountable. He lost the election. If Republicans fail to convict, which they will, it will further signal their moral depravity.
You are right; America sort of did. But you could say America held everyone who loses an election accountable. It's no stamp of immorality. It just means your popularity is <50%. And the election was not about the insurrection, which came after. And if you think America did and the Senate won't, then what's the point of failing to convict?
I want the names of the people who refuse to convict a true wannabe dictator to live in infamy. And I do believe the majority of Republicans in Congress are immoral hypocrites.
I'm 100% with you on that.
Of course, you or me wanting something does not mean that demanding it or organizing for it is good for democracy. I want to limit income to 100 times the average, just as Huey Long advocated. But that doesn't mean that either I or the Democrats should make that demand any time soon.
What's good for democracy or America is a tougher question than "what do I want." And that's the difference between someone like FDR who gets stuff done and radicals who set us back.
It doesn't show that when the excercise is purely partisan. In fact it shows the opposite.
So we shouldn't try to enforce laws and norms unless the other side is willing to do so as well? I'm not sure that argument really holds up.
I think we should not be so sure we are enforcing norms and laws when there is no bipartisan agreement that is what is happening. Starr and Hyde told themselves they were enforcing laws and norms. Instead they were setting us on the road to partisan impeachments on a regular basis.
That's a valuable point; it is certainly wise to interrogate one's own judgement when there is no consensus. Having so interrogated my own, it is quite clear that Mr. Trump is responsible for the attack on Congress, and attempted continuously to damage and corrupt our democratic process over the 2+ months after the election. The "norms and laws" at stake are truth and the republic's democratic core. One party's representatives largely do not agree (at least not in public), and I judge them wrong.
Comparing this to the Clinton impeachment seems misguided. That was a largely politically motivated investigation; looking at the votes for the Clinton impeachment, a number of Republicans voted not to impeach, and *also* voted not to convict. A few Democrats voted to impeach (though fewer than Republicans voted *not* to impeach), and zero Democrats voted to convict.
The Clinton impeachment also did not begin with an attack on the Capitol after two months of corrosive lies about election fraud.
I think that case can be made that Trump bears responsibility for the attack. I even mostly agree with it. But I also think it is not a slam dunk matter, which is the only threshold worth applying to impeachment. Perhaps his second impeachment would not have been as contentious if the first one had not been so transparently politically motivated--at least as much as Clinton's.