Loading...
Title : Impeach!
link : Impeach!
Impeach!
First, I beg readers to offer a prayer (if so inclined) for the victims of the horrific Easter church bombings in Sri Lanka. So far, I've seen no news stories naming the group responsible for this tragedy. I fear that these attacks will become propaganda fodder for anti-Muslim activists in this country and in Europe.Impeach! I stand with Elizabeth Warren: We must all screech to impeach. I'm also overjoyed to see that Lawrence Tribe has come around.
Mueller’s report has in no way cleared the president of grave wrongdoing. It would be a lie to claim otherwise, as Barr and Trump repeatedly have done. The report takes pains to note that the investigation could not establish wrongdoing under the strict framework of conspiracy law, but declines to draw a conclusion on the existence of collusion, which “is not a specific offense or theory” under U.S. law. Further, Mueller does not mince words about the president’s potential obstruction of justice, stating: “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”Actually, there is some word-mincing here; I would have preferred a straightforward "He did it!" since the evidence is incontrovertible.
(Gotta admit: Rudy's defense -- He was joking! It was just a bit! -- was downright hilarious. Keep it up, Rudy! I needed that laugh.)
Yes, the polls indicate that the public is not yet with us. On this issue, public opinion must be shifted, not followed. Here's how Democratic politicians should phrase the argument:
"The 'smoking gun' tape which brought down Richard Nixon showed just one act of attempted obstruction of justice. Mueller proved that Trump committed the exact same crime at least ten times over. Trump beat the conspiracy rap by dangling pardons. Only a guilty person would obstruct justice."
These words will do the job. I'm not saying that this argument will persuade everyone; I'm saying that it is reasonable and easily understood. Any Republican who tries to mount a counter-argument will soon start sputtering like Porky Pig.
Even if impeachment does not lead to removal, Democrats should pursue this goal -- first and foremost, for reasons of ethics and national morality. It's simply the right thing to do. Moreover, it's also the tactically correct thing to do. In my view, history demonstrates that impeachment will aid the Democrats politically.
The commonly-heard comparison goes to the Clinton impeachment. The political fallout from that event requires a nuanced interpretation which most teevee pundits refuse to provide.
The Republicans had hoped to fare well in the 1998 elections, which followed hard upon the impeachment circus. They didn't. But neither did they receive a "shellacking" (a word used by an MSNBC talking head this morning). The GOP lost seats but retained control of the House, while the Senate remained unchanged.
Clinton's personal popularity rose. The broadcast of his grand jury testimony made him seem sympathetic and reminded everyone of how likable the guy could be. (The Republicans had insisted on that broadcast. Boy, did that tactic backfire!)
Basically, the citizenry belatedly understood that Republican propagandists had wildly over-promised. After years of hearing that Whitewater was a worse scandal than the JFK assassination and Watergate combined, we finally learned that all of those right-wing conspiracy theories were based on pure blather. Starr's uncontrolled, brutally partisan and absolutely ruthless inquisition had managed to uncover only a completely extraneous extramarital affair, which the public correctly judged to be no big deal. Though Republicans and feminists tried to portray Clinton as a presidential predator, this line of attack flopped: Monica Lewinsky clearly took the initiative in the affair, and she ended up saying "I hate Linda Tripp," not "I hate Bill Clinton."
When you think about it, the 1998 elections should have been much worse for the GOP, since their star propagandists stood revealed as liars. But the Republicans did not suffer. They came out of 1998 fairly well -- and in 2000, they won the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
I would argue that the Republicans would have fared far worse if they had not impeached Bill Clinton. A refusal to pursue impeachment would have been tantamount to a grand public announcement: Okay, you know those stories we told you about Bill Clinton, Master of Evil and King of the Illuminati? All of that stuff was bullshit. We simply made up a bunch of conspiracy theories.
Impeachment allowed the Republicans to portray themselves as the Party of Virtue. A neologism took hold: Virtuecrats. William Bennett (whose secret life was then well-hidden) wrote his smarmy Book of Virtues, which begat a small propaganda empire -- sequels, children's books, animated films and so forth. This new propaganda line was very effective. Meanwhile, teevee comedians continued to use the Lewinsky affair as fodder for jokes, hitting Clinton again and again. Even David Letterman (whose politics skew left) said that the Oval Office would have to be hosed out after Clinton left.
In 2000, Al Gore felt obligated to distance himself from a president whose administration had, by any historic measure, been quite successful. Gore chose the despicable Joe Lieberman as his running mate for one reason only: Lieberman had been a Clinton critic.
In short: If the Republicans had not impeached Bill Clinton, Gore almost certainly would have won the presidency, and the precariously-balanced Senate (50-50 in 2000) would have fallen under Democratic control. Perhaps even the House would have turned blue.
Today, if the Democrats do not screech to impeach, they will empower Trump's "witch hunt" narrative. The result will be electoral disaster. Impeachment will not impede the Democrats' chances in 2020. In fact, impeachment is a requirement.
A word about public opinion. Readers may question my consistency. In previous posts, I've argued that the word "socialism" must be avoided, since all polls indicate strong public opposition to the concept. You can't change that situation through educational efforts: Speeches and essays and songs and movies and Bill Maher monologues simply won't change the fact that Americans do not like and never will like socialism. (Or rather, they don't like that word; they still intend to cash their social security checks.)
When it comes to the S word, my counsel is "Heed public opinion." But when it comes to impeachment, my counsel is "Change public opinion."
A contradiction? No.
I'm simply offering my view as to which poll numbers can be shifted and which are intractable. All evidence indicates that for more than a century, Americans have had a phobic reaction to the S word. Look at the data:
Fewer than one in five Americans view socialism favorably, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published Sunday.You may argue that other polls will give different results. Not that different. Don't kid yourself.
The poll found that 18 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism, compared to 50 percent who view it negatively. The poll found opposite perspectives on capitalism, with 50 percent saying they view it favorably and 19 percent reporting that they see it negatively.
The poll also found that only 25 percent of Americans are enthusiastic or comfortable with a socialist becoming the next president.
("But young people...!" Fuck you. The young are not the only voters.)
By contrast: On this morning, Trump's disapproval is 53.2 percent and his approval is 41.6 percent. Those numbers have been pretty consistent throughout his term. A majority of Americans want to believe ill of this man; they are reachable, persuadable.
Dems, do you really want Trump's "witch hunt" narrative to have purchase? Do you want his propaganda points to prevail? If not, then you must continually push two truths:
1. The Mueller report demonstrates obstruction of justice.
2. Obstruction is the only reason Trump beat the "collusion" rap. If no underlying crime existed, there would have been no need for obstruction. (Besides, Mueller heeded -- foolishly, in my opinion -- DOJ policy which forbids the indictment of a president.)
Those two points will have no impact unless backed by action, by impeachment. If you want to use the term "political theater," fine: Theater can tell important truths. The impeachment process is the way to impress those truth 1 and truth 2 on the public mind. It may be the only way to convey the truth to those who remain locked in the Fox News bubble.
Thus Article Impeach!
That's an article Impeach! This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Impeach! with the link address https://wordcomes.blogspot.com/2019/04/impeach.html
0 Response to "Impeach!"
Post a Comment