Debates about tactics and strategy are important.
The debate about impeachment IS a debate about tactics and strategy.
Common sense tells us that Congressional Democrats will have the power to hold the White House accountable on a wide range of issues, including, ultimately, the power to impeach if conditions merit it. I think it's safe to say that 100% of Democrats and 100% those who helped elect Democrats to a majority in Congress are more than fine with that. Everybody knew that going in...
Common sense, however, also tells me that branding that oversight ahead of time as being instigated for the sake of impeaching President George Bush and/or Vice President Dick Cheney will change the politics and process of oversight. A platform of impeachment is NOT what the Democratic Party advocated going in to this election. Further, since Speaker-elect Pelosi said that "impeachment was off the table", putting it "on the table" will require either:
a) a level of bi-partisan, popular and media demand for impeachment on the level of Watergate, probably as a result of Congressional inquiries that are actively resisted by the Executive Branch.
b) barring that, a massive inter-party battle within the Democratic Party to take a stand on impeachment on principle even though it will likely fail. Either this campaign swings Speaker Pelosi to become an "impeachment advocate" or it will have to find enough members of the Democratic caucus to override the Speaker-elect.
It seems to me that impeachment advocates blithely assume the likelihood of eventuality A...and are equally blithely naive about the likelihood, ulterior motives, and political costs involved with eventuality B.
You may disagree with that point of view. Fine. That's why we have discussions and debate things.
But this debate IS a debate about tactics and strategy.
For myself, I have two thoughts.
I think advocating impeachment right now is extremely poor tactics. And, imo, has an underlying aspect of being poor politics.
First, under our Constitution, the Bush Administration is subject to the outcome of this last election changing the make up of the US Congress. President Bush is subject to the oversight and investigatory powers of Congress, he is subject the legislative powers of Congress as the sole body that writes and passes laws, he is subject to the power of US Senate to confirm his nominations, further, his judges are themselves subject to the power of Congress in determining the jurisdiction of our Courts (including the Supreme Court) and, ultimately, every aspect of the Presidency and the Executive Branch is subject to the Congressional power of the purse.
In this sense, as a result of the 2006 elections, the United States Constitution is already working its checks and balances and will work every day for the next two years. The people have spoken, and in our system of government, the people, as specifically represented in the United States Congress, have a great deal of power.
In my mind there is a philosophical flaw in the argument that in order to "defend the Constitution" we must impeach the President. The voters of the United States in effect just did that...and, yes, voters did that with the full knowledge that in addition to all the significant powers that Congress has above...that the House and the Senate can, as well, impeach members of the Executive Branch and the Judiciary if circumstances merit...as a grave and last resort.
What is missing from this "campaign for impeachment" is, in my mind, a sense of groundedness and realism about the Constitution and the political realities of the day. The left wing of the Democratic Party has a DNC chair, Howard Dean, and a Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and will have the Chairs of so many Congressional Committees that we are on the brink of a new day in D.C. politics. That "left lean" in our leadership, however, does NOT represent every member of our coalition. How we left Democrats manage this situation, and choose to lead, will reflect on all of us.
We have a chance to send a clear message with our priorities and policies. On torture, what sends the stronger message...a campaign to remove Bush from office or new legislation that actually changes U.S. policy on torture? On war profiteering, what sends the stronger message: oversight and investigation of U.S. military contracts in Iraq and new legislation guaranteeing an end to no-bid contracts or a campaign to impeach Dick Cheney? I think the answer is clear.
Finally, I want to make absolutely clear to some who don't realize that there are always post-election debates about tactics and strategy that represent divisive agendas. I think aspects of the impeachment campaign here on dkos clearly represent this kind of effort.
We all agree on oversight and investigation. We all agree on holding the Bush Administration accountable. Why, then, is impeachment the burning and divisive issue of the day here on the dkos? Why is it that those who don't agree with the TACTIC of impeachment are being accused of supporting torture? of being DLC?
Debates on tactics can be used to divide political parties. It's as common as it is regrettable. There is an aspect to the tactics expressed by some of us here that is heavily invested in advocating a "radicalizing" strategy. When we win, these folks advocate divisive radical tactics and cast aspersions on those who don't go along. When we lose, these folks advance that the election was stolen and demand that we join the claim. (These strategies are mirrored, of course, on the right wing of our party as well.)
I would like to make a very simple point in that regard. In my view, if we on the left wing of the Democratic party took election reform and advanced it with the burning passion some here are advancing impeachment, it would do everyone some very real good. It would be a pragmatic move that would achieve idealistic ends and redound to our credit. We would back up our criticisms of 2004 with real action.
I predict that won't happen. Not because election reform isn't TRULY IMPORTANT, we've all always agreed on that. It won't happen because the most vocal part of the fraud movement, just like the most vocal part of the impeachment movement, has consistently chosen the path of divisive debate over pragmatic action. For the sake of our ideals, those advocating impeachment argue, we must tear apart the very party that got us the power to impeach in the first place.
Pragmatism, however, is not only NOT a dirty word. It's actually the value most at the heart of our Constitution. Throughout our history, we've had to MAKE the laws of our nation reflect our deepest ideals; it has been a true and ongoing struggle. It's been a struggle that has involved amending the Constitution itself.
But it is precisely because our Constitution is an eminently pragmatic document that we've been able to fight to make our laws reflect our ideals in the first place. The pragmatism of the U.S. Constitution reflects, fundamentally, a dubiousness and wariness of entrenched power and an openness to idealistic reform. The abuse of power we see in the Bush Administration is precisely why the Framers mandated Congressional elections every two years and gave Congress power to thwart the Executive Branch. That, more than anything else, is why I think the tactic of impeachment is mis-timed and ill-expressed.
The framers did not create impeachment to be used as a partisan tool to be advanced by one party alone. It is a last resort. An election, such as the one we just had, can effectively hobble the executive branch. The Democratic party has just begun to use the power granted to it by the voters of the United States in the election of 2006. That power reflects a deep legitimacy granted us by the Constitution of the United States.
We should do everything in our power to cultivate and focus that legitimacy on achieving ends that work to benefit every American.
As I said above, I'm for passing laws and doing oversight. I think that's what the American voters expect of us. I also think, on some deep level, that is what the Constitution itself demands of us.
{This diary is a response to Occams Hatchet's earlier essay on the topic.}