Google “to impeach or not to impeach” and you’ll get “about 27,700 results” in 0.48 seconds, as of this writing.
That issue, that question is on the minds of virtually every American.
Every news media – print, radio, tv, whatever — and every magazine and blog worth its salt has discussed, debated, dissected and distilled it.
Max Boot, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece, not surprisingly titled “To impeach or not to impeach? That is now the question,” perhaps “distilled” the Gordian knot facing the country best:
Presumably the Democratic leadership is worried about repeating the debacle that was the Clinton impeachment, with Bill Clinton emerging more popular than ever. If there is a popular backlash against an impeachment — if it is seen, in Trump’s favorite phrase, as a political witch hunt — it could help the president win a second term. That would be a worst-case scenario for American democracy, because it would seem to vindicate all of his lying and lawbreaking and encourage future presidents to emulate his tawdry example.
But a failure to impeach could send a similar message of impunity, whereas approving articles of impeachment, even if they do not result in removal, would at least leave a permanent stain on Trump’s presidency. He would become only the third president in U.S. history, after Clinton and Andrew Johnson, to be impeached. (Nixon resigned before the full House voted on articles of impeachment.) Future generations would remember Trump for the scoundrel that he is. His impeachment would be mentioned in the first line of his obituary.
Contributors and readers at The Moderate Voice – as people across the nation – have been similarly debating the virtues and perils of impeaching the 45th president, running the gamut from impeach now to never impeach and making insightful comments on the wisdom, efficacy and timing of an impeachment process.
This author has also expressed his views, perhaps more accurately “his frustrations.”
It might be of interest to consider the views expressed in a recent issue of The Atlantic – one of the oldest and most-respected magazines in the United States – and the reactions from its readers.
Even before the Mueller Report was released, Yoni Appelbaum, the editor of The Atlantic’s Ideas section and a historian of American institutions, made “the case for impeachment.”
Even before Mueller – without specifically referring to the impeachment process — stated in his report that Congress has the authority and the power to continue to investigate and judge the constitutionality and lawfulness of Trump’s actions, Appelbaum argued in his piece:
The question of whether impeachment is justified should not be confused with the question of whether it is likely to succeed in removing a president from office. The country will benefit greatly regardless of how the Senate ultimately votes. Even if the impeachment of Donald Trump fails to produce a conviction in the Senate, it can safeguard the constitutional order from a president who seeks to undermine it.
It would not do justice to attempt to summarize Appelbaum’s extraordinary treatise here, therefore just a few of the most salient excerpts are quoted. The article can be read in full here.
“Starting the process will rein in a president who is undermining American ideals— and bring the debate about his fitness for office into Congress, where it belongs.”
Recalling in detail Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment (“The closest the Senate has ever come to removing a president”) Appelbaum writes,
“Remembered today as a lamentable exercise in hyper-partisanship, in fact Johnson’s impeachment functioned as the Founders had intended, sparing the country from the 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.”
Appelbaum concludes:
“Today, the United States once more confronts a president who seems to care for only some of the people he represents, who promises his supporters that he can roll back the tide of diversity, who challenges the rule of law, and who regards constitutional rights and liberties as disposable.”
“Congress must again decide whether the greater risk lies in executing the Constitution as it was written, or in deferring to voters to do what it cannot muster the courage to do itself. The gravest danger facing the country is not a Congress that seeks to measure the president against his oath — it is a president who fails to measure up to that solemn promise.”
The May issue of The Atlantic carried nine readers’ responses to Appelbaum’s “Case for Impeachment,” the majority expressing opposition to or weariness towards impeachment.
Below are summarized the essence of readers’ arguments for or against impeachment.
In the “against” category:
“Impeachment would dominate the rest of Trump’s term, sucking the oxygen from discussions of any other substantive issues…[It]would define Democrats solely as anti-Trump and deprive them of the opportunity to define what they are for…Public anger at politicians and distrust of government would only grow, as would the likelihood of further gridlock and failure to address the nation’s problems, no matter who is elected next year.”
“…impeachment is more likely to unite Republicans behind Trump…Republican voters and senators would choose the president.”
Others, while believing the reasoning for impeachment to be sound, believe Pence would be “the principal beneficiary” of a successful impeachment:
“…[Pence] would retain the loyalty of Trump’s followers, who would likely turn out in droves to avenge Trump’s ‘martyrdom.’”
“Should Trump be impeached and convicted prior to the expiration of his current term in office, Mike Pence would take over with the full authority to pardon Trump in the remaining days of that term… Leaving a path for Trump to walk free subverts justice and is not an option.”
Even Mitch McConnell is thrown into the mix:
“Donald Trump is indeed unable to fulfill the duties of his office. The problem is that this also seems to be true of many members of Congress. if I were to single out one offender, it would be Mitch McConnell. The country is being held hostage by a badly behaved child having a temper tantrum, and McConnell refuses to do anything unless he is assured that the child will approve. Yes, we need impeachment. But who is going to do it?”
Finally, the pro-impeachment folks:
“Yoni Appelbaum’s terrific piece on impeachment has settled my swirling mind. I now think that the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller makes his move, whether or not his report goes to the House of Representatives, impeachment should begin. There are ample grounds without anything Mueller may reveal, so there is no reason to wait once he is done…”
“A salient reason to begin impeachment proceedings is that doing so would show the world that democracy works…”
Then there are the ominous words we often hear:
“There is every reason for Democrats to start holding hearings into Trump’s misconduct. There is every reason for them to demand his tax returns and ask him to testify in front of Congress. But for now, impeachment would be the wrong means toward a noble end: Designed to contain the damage a dangerous president can wreak, it may turn out to help Trumpism survive even after Trump is forced to leave the White House.”
Keep in mind, Applebaum’s article and the responses were penned before the Mueller Report was published. A report that exposed the full breadth and scope of Trump’s corruption and malfeasance and a report that left a clear trail of “bread crumbs” leading right up to the steps of Congress.
The question is now, “Will Congress step up to the task?”
Lead image: Library of Congress
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.