You are herecontent / Impeachment in Seven Reasons

Impeachment in Seven Reasons

By Stirling Newberry,

Kos has said that impeachment talk is silly. With all due respect, it is deadly serious and completely necessary. The constellation of impeachment is rising.

First let me set the terms of debate. No President has ever been removed through conviction in the Senate. Only one has come close, and he almost had to side with the defeated South after a bloody war. No, no one seriously expects Bush to be removed. For the same reason, talk of "President Cheney" is also irrelevant, because Bush isn't going to resign. He won't even listen to people who contradict him on small matters, let alone large ones. Resignation is not in the cards for King George.

Thus "impeachment" means that, "impeachment" and not "conviction and removal". Since removal is not going to happen, the question of what "President Cheney" would do is irrelevant. More over, governorships are not comparable, because governors can be reached through normal mechanisms of law. McGreevey and Rowland resigned, because the alternative included trial by jury.

Second, there will be no formal moves towards impeachement unless and until there is a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. This means that impeachment, for the next year at least, will be about pressure for impeachment, and not the question of whether to vote on the Senate floor.

Finally, the Cheney question may well be answered before the election. Cheney, unlike Bush, can be indicted and tried as an ordinary criminal. And that is closing in around him because of the Plame investigation, just as Agnew was targetted at the point in time when Nixon began to seem vulnerable, the powers that be are looking in to cancelling Bush's impeachment insurance. That would mean a Vice-President, though selected by Bush, which would have to be voted on by a majority of both houses of Congress. If before the elections, the Republicans would have to put their seal of approval on whoever Bush selects, and thus tie them even more firmly to Bush electorally. [A commenter has noted, correctly, that impeachment could only occur with a Speaker Pelosi and therefore, taking the hypothetical that impeachment opponents use of a removal of Bush and Cheney, it is not Hastert the Unspeakerable who will be President, but the first woman chief executive in American history. Almost impossible, but once we go through the looking glass, we might as well play the game by the rules.]

Here are the reasons for pushing impeachment:

I. Impeachment as a tool of realignment

Impeachment is a tool by which the country calls to account a head strong executive. There have been four Presidents who had impeachment articles referred to the floor: Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton. There have been five other Presidents who had impeachment articles filed against them: Cleveland, Hoover, Truman, Reagan, Bush Sr.

Of these 9:

8 times the opposite party won the next Presidential election - only Reagan was the exception.
7 times the party pushing impeachment retained control of Congress - Tyler, which was a Whig civil war, and Truman were the only exceptions.

If "realignment" is ones goal, then the historical record indicates that a serious attempt to impeach is part of the means by which elected members of congress affirm their complete and utter disgust for the executive. Rightly or wrongly, they are putting political symbolism behind the country's anger.

II. Impeachment as a tool to restrain an executive

The other result of impeachment is that almost all other business comes to a stop. Faced with an executive set on acting against Congress - again, rightly or wrongly - Congress has the ability to stop the national debate, and focus it on the question of the chief executive's fitness for office. For those who fear an invasion of Syria, for those who see Bush as being willing to gamble on desperate connivance to maintain his Presidency and power, impeachment is a means by which Congress levels the power of investigation at an executive.

III. Impeachment as a means of removing legitimacy.

Impeachment has another important function, it is the means by which America tells the rest of the world that we reject George Walker Bush and his actions. This is essential for restoring America's credibility with other nations, particularly our allies in Europe. American actions in Iraq were illegal, impeachment is a mechanism for demonstrating to the world that America can be relied upon not to elect another Bush when the political winds of fortune shift. Merely turning his political heirs out in an election is not sufficient. Mentioning Johnson and Carter fails - because Johnson and Carter were both personally repudiated by the electoral process. Johnson after losing in New Hampshire, and Carter at the short end of an electoral landslide.

IV. Impeachment as means of exposing weakness

Impeachment is something that a large fraction of the country wants. In a recent commissioned poll 53% said that "Congress should hold Bush accountable through impeachment if he lied to take us to Iraq." And in a separate poll, more than 50% said that he did lie to take us into Iraq. This means that impeachment is the plurality position in the country, and it has been growing steadily. It is not the economic fundamentals that are undermining Bush as much as the perception that he cannot be relied upon.

This is the "Carter test", an executive can be re-elected in bad economic times if he personally seems to have a plan and be in charge. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan all faced less than ideal reelection economic environments, but all had a plan, and thus were given credit for success. Truman was reelected, in fact, just as a recession was starting. Bush is an economic failure, and impeachment will highlight that he cannot be trusted.

V. Impeachment as a means of setting right the Democratic Party

Most importantly is a point raised by Bush himself: to run impeachment the Democratic Party will have to do what Senator John Edwards did - namely, admit that Iraq was a mistake, take responsibility, and put forward leadership on Iraq. They will have to not only impeach Bush, but they will have to admit their own errors, and set forward an alternate policy.

VI. Impeachment as agenda.

In the wake of Tyler, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton impeachments the impeachment formed the basis for a political consensus as to what the agenda should be. With Tyler it was a move to restrain the executive branch and push outwards rather than inwards. With Johnson it was reconstruction and the post-war amendments, with Nixon it was opening government, including campaign finance reform, reform of Congress, the war powers act and other forms of restraining the Imperial Presidency. With Clinton it was seen as the basis for a rejection of executive managment of the economy. In each case the next chief executive won by running against the impeached executive.

Whether one agrees with those past agendas or not, it is clear that impeachment has been used, over and over again, to set the terms of debate.

VII. Impeachment as the basis for a campaign.

The Democratic Party has been using the language of impeachment. Reid has repeated "abuse of power", which is the very definition of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors". The need to investigate Bush, that is, with sub peonas power, is a basic campaign theme for getting people to vote against their incumbent Republican law maker and instead for a Democratic majority. To investigate requires a majority in one house, particularly the House of Representatives.

If impeachment is the back drop that surrogates take, then it gives the elected party the cover to push for investigation. Impeachment creates the Democrats as a party of principle, rather than a party of careerism and opportunism. Because the country feels that impeachment is right, and those who disagree will at least see it as a principled stand, it takes back that important language of moral fortitude that a governing party must have.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

III. should be I. in my opinion. Aside from trying to limit the number of americans at risk of death, dismemberment and physical, mental, and emotional scarring, restoring our global credibility is foremost. the only way to do so is to demonstrate that this collossal disaster that george w bush has created is bush's way, not the american way, and that we can deal with such tyranny internally.this is just so damn crucial.

scary as it is, there are still roughly 40% of this country that still think george is wonderful. Amazing, but true. these are the people the republicans depend on. where these 40% go, so go the republicans in congress. If they realize they've been DUPED by their party,that's when we'll see change. Faced with the choice between self preservation or going down with the ship,which do you think they'll choose? they'll turn on george faster and more viciously than any democrat could begin to. however, as long as this 40% loves george, we will keep spinning our wheels. the republican congress will never alienate their base. these 40% are the ones we need to convince. the choir is already on board.

While I agree with Mr Newberry's very good analysis of previous impeachments, I believe the stakes today are much much higher and more serious. Probably many of the previous impeachment proceedings have been politically motivated. Political motivation such as the impeachemnt of Bill Clinton is not the motive here. The course of action of this administration and its neocon supporters is not only bad for this country but bad for the world. We need to get Bush and his people out as soon as possible in any way that is legal. We need to do this because their direction is not only wrong but fundamentally against everything that has been done to make this nation great nation it was. All the wars economic strife, struggles mistakes etc that this country has done for the last 200 plus years was done within the framework the founding fathers set up. This administration has and is changing that little by little and its sad that so few people can see the truth. The reason we need to act now is that even though they are currently experiencing some problems they are still in power and and for the next three years will continue to "stay the course". They will also continue to consolidate their power and instead of being weaker in 3 years will just have to put little georgie out to pasture and bring in another shill like Condi Rice (good for the black and womens vote.) The problem here is that these people are undermining the very nature of our democracy and are slowly turning it into something else. What I don't know but I wouldn't want to live here after they have succeeded. There is a quote that says something like "Bad men succeed when Good men do nothing." (I am not trying to be sexist here.) So day after day we "good men" are lulled into a complacency that somehow the checks and balances that were put in place by the Founding Fathers will some how change things back to a more moderate or centrist direction. Don't bet on it. Impeach now! Why? Because anyone and I mean anyone will be better than what we have now. Even if the country goes into a constitutional crisis, it will essentially stop the direction we are headed now. Sure we should be concerned about what comes after. But this country is hemmoraging and dying and every day the wound get bigger and sucks more of the life force out of us. We need to put all our energy into stopping the ship of state from continuing on the course it is going. Then we can worry about a new direction. Do one step at a time. Because if we don't do something now, even after we have regained control, the ship of state may be like the Titanic or Humpty Dumpty and all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't save it or much less put it back to where it was.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Speaking Events



August 2-6: Peace and Democracy Conference at Democracy Convention in Minneapolis, Minn.


September 22-24: No War 2017 at American University in Washington, D.C.


October 28: Peace and Justice Studies Association Conference

Find more events here.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.