Impeachment: it comes down to courage

[edelsont]

I've responded to entries in this community journal before, but this is my first independent entry here.  I live in the USA, specifically in the mountainous far-western part of North Carolina.

 

I know that not everyone active in this community is US-American, but probably most know something about our current president.  I won't name him at the moment; I prefer to refer to him as the Orange Outrage.  If you infer that I don't like him, you are not wrong.

 

In fact, I am one of those who believes that he should be impeached (and removed from office).  That is my topic today.

 

I've written about impeachment a number of times in my personal journal (edelsont.dreamwidth.org/), most recently five days ago, on May 6 (edelsont.dreamwidth.org/8436.html).

 

Talk of impeachment has gotten more widespread lately, since the release of the Mueller report.  In particular, it's being talked about frequently by members of the House of Representatives, which is the body which would have to take the first steps to act on it.

 

Among Congressbeings of the Democratic persuasion, quite a few have come out in favor of impeachment, or at least of the beginning of a formal impeachment proceeding.  Among those who haven't, most, if they've spoken up about it all, seem to me to be saying something more-or-less equivalent to "We think that he deserves to be impeached -- that doing so would be morally and legally justified -- but we're not sure, nevertheless, that it would be a good idea actually to do it."  And various arguments are put forth in favor of that position.

I don't intend directly to address any of those arguments today, though I may do so later.  It's not that I think they are so obviously wrong as not to need discussing; indeed, I think it is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree.

 

But today, I want to do something different, which isn't exactly an "argument" for (or against) impeachment at all.  It's just a different way of looking at the question.  That is to suggest that if you think that impeachment is justified, but doubt that it is advisable, you should try thinking about it as a question of courage.

 

The courage I am talking about is political, not physical, and it is primarily the courage (or lack of same) of groups, not individuals.  In other words, I certainly don't mean to suggest (and do not believe) that anyone taking the "impeachment is justifiable but not advisable" position is a coward.

 

I have no doubt that an impeachment process would be unpleasant, messy, and perhaps, in one or more senses, dangerous.  There is nothing morally wrong with wishing, and trying, to avoid these consequences.  But ask yourself this: if the House does not move to impeach, would the nation actually be avoiding those consequences?  Or would it just be postponing them?

 

Maybe it's like when the auto mechanic says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."  The implication is that, if you choose to wait until later, it's going to cost more.

Comments

[airiefairie]

Most importantly, welcome to the gang! =)

[dewline]

I doubt that you're alone in your thinking on this. You, Robert Reich, probably me up here in Canada...

[jazzyjj]

I like your line of thinking here, and welcome! I certainly hope that we as a whole can muster up the courage to impeach our S of a B President. I admittedly haven't been keeping tabs on this whole situation like I should due to social engagements and such, but by golly he has done more than enough to deserve impeachment. I for one, can't for the life of me figure out why that hasn't happened already and I have as a matter of fact discussed this among my immediate family and circle of friends. I would write more on the subject, but my Mac is running low on juice and I'm not currently near a charger.

[garote]

I think it's a matter of practicality more than courage.

The guy is a pig. The Democratic party would have to spend about a year wrestling with a pig in shit, and the best outcome they could get from that would be a big coating of shit for the next election cycle, and Mike Pence at the controls, just in time for him to run for his own presidential term - not a bad candidate, from the Republican point of view - and the possibility of 12 years of a quasi-Trump presidency.

That's a really, really bad prize for "courage" and "winning".

[oportet]

The counterargument would be - if you don't let this go, it will cost more.

If the Russia investigation was a game, the Dems lost it. Refusing to accept that isn't persistent and inspiring, it's stubborn and dangerous - for the party and the country as a whole.

The Dems and their media have done the rest of the left a disservice by pumping this up and giving hope where there should none.

blanket reply to the five comments so far

[edelsont]

To all five: thanks!

On the first three: each seems to be some combination of welcoming me to the group, and/or agreeing (at least tentatively) to the gist of what I said. If I'm right in my interpretation, then I think "thanks" covers it. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

The last two seem to be disagreeing with me. One difference: with one, I think I understand what we disagree about. With the other (by "opertet"), I'm not so clear about that.

But in both cases: each deserves some careful discussion. Sadly, I can't provide that right now: a simple matter of time. Perhaps I can come back to it later. But it's also possible that before I do, events will have moved on so that these particular questions no longer seem to have any practical relevance.

My apologies if this leaves anyone feeling frustrated. And I hope that, by declining to engage in this way, I am not violating any standards, written or otherwise, of conduct in this community.

[dancesofthelight]

Main problem with that is the Senate is required for impeachment. McConnell only obeys precedent he wants to obey. Who's going to bell the cat and tell him 'do this or else'? And what happens if he just sits on his ass jacking off to porn in Kentucky rather than doing his job but being paid like he's working for a living when he has to do it?