There has been much discussion around here of late about whether, now that Democrats have taken control of both houses of Congress, it is appropriate and/or prudent, politically and otherwise, to bring to bear the full powers of the Constitution upon this administration and its patently obvious malfeasance over the past six years.
One of the arguments often advanced questions the political wisdom of such a zeal for the exercise of congressional power, and suggests that unfortunately, any headlong rush in the direction of exercising such power would only stir up bad memories of the last time such power was exercised:
During the Clinton administration.
Republicans in Congress during the Clinton administration abused the "i"-word. They cheapened it to the point where it lost all meaning. For that reason, we Democrats must be very circumspect and cautious before we go bandying it about, or – God forbid – suggesting it as a possible course of action.
I agree with that position. In fact, after having read all of and participated in some of the debate on this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that, despite whatever mandate some would have us believe was delivered to the Democrats on November 7, it would be foolish for those of us here in the progressive blogosphere – and indeed anywhere in the Democratic universe – to push too hard right now for the use of the "i"-word.
After Republicans in Congress during the Clinton years made a mockery of congressional procedures and powers in their single-minded, obsessive, wild-eyed, slavering obsession to Get Bill Clinton, Democrats in the 110th Congress risk being tarred with the same brush of irresponsibility, political axe-grinding and vendetta.
If we do not wish to be accused of abusing congressional powers for political ends in exactly the same manner as the Republicans did during the Clinton administration, we must avoid using those powers, and we must avoid speaking of using them. The use of such powers must be off the table until it is clearly demonstrated that we have no choice but to use them; otherwise, we run the risk of being labeled the same kind of political opportunists as the Republicans in Congress were during the Clinton years – and who wants to run the risk of that? Being labeled "shrill and vengeful" by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Britt Hume is not something any of us wants.
Regardless of what the Constitution might say, regardless of whatever powers might be granted to Congress, regardless of whatever "mandate" the American electorate might have sent to congressional Democrats on November 7, we should, in fact, heed the well-considered and nobly motivated advice coming from much of the mainstream media, and indeed, from many of our well-intentioned colleagues on the Right. We must – at all costs – avoid the appearance of operating from political motivation. We must, in spite of the almost unbearable temptation to do so, refrain from the discussion – indeed, refrain even from the thought – of pulling out and using the Big Gun, the "i"-word.
I am speaking, of course, about –
INVESTIGATION.
During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led Congress made a mockery of the process of investigation. A quick examination of the list of some of the ill-founded, politically motivated, expensive, divisive fishing expeditions instigated by an irresponsible Republican party machine bent on discrediting an opponent in the White House bears this out (for a more thorough dissection of these wasteful investigations, see this 2001 report (PDF file) from Rep. Henry Waxman’s office):
Today, Democrats, with our newly earned clout in both houses, must avoid at all costs the appearance of politicization or revenge-seeking. Since through their actions during the Clinton administration Republicans have so cheapened, so sullied in the public mind, the process of investigation, turning it into nothing more than a political sideshow designed to impugn and impede political foes for the purpose of derailing their policy agenda, a headlong rush to wield that power would convince the public that, indeed, Democrats seek only to "get back at" Republicans for their own politically motivated excesses during the Clinton administration.
For that reason, "investigation" is not something to be taken lightly, to be bandied about, to be brandished in the face of the administration and the American public. We must wait and see whether there is sufficient cause to investigate. Investigations divided the country, used up valuable resources, took much of the attention of Congress. Nothing got done. Money was spent. Mud was flung. People were subpoenaed and called to testify. We want to avoid that at all costs. What Republicans think about us is very important.
.
.
All right - enough snark. Let’s turn it off:
</snark>
Okay, so all of the above is a snark-dripping poke. But seriously, folks, let's take a step back. In a wonderful comment the other day, Susan Something said,
I think there's a real confusion about what our roles are.
We are not prosecutors, judges, senators, nor are we "observing bystanders" as was said upthread. We are citizens. We have our role. More precisely, my role, as I see it, is to let my reps and senators and fellow citizens know that I want Bush's ass booted out of my White House for the crimes he's already admitted to, the crimes and abuses of power that are already evident, and the multitude of improprieties that I think are bound to be uncovered with aggressive investigation. I don't expect my senator to then go speak on the floor of the senate saying a bunch of her constituents want bush's "ass booted". I don't expect Nancy Pelosi to announce that a bunch of people want "Bush's ass booted" and therefore investigations will commence. I don't expect Senators in an impeachment trial to say to W "why shouldn't we boot your ass?".
No, I expect methodical, professional, law-abiding processes and behaviors from our 3 branches. And I intend to fully express my opinion, which I hope will be but one of many other millions of voices belonging to the people of the U.S. which is the flame under all their butts, to extract this insane, law-breaking, tyrranical asshole out of the seat that sits in the Oval Office. It's not a throne. . .
[P]eople who are anti-impeachment need to understand that everyone pro-impeachment has varying overlapping opinions and styles, just as those who are against it do. It's not one homegenous group of robots. One person does not speak for the whole. One person speaks for him or herself and is sometimes able to motivate others who are like-minded, but hopefully there will be many millions of Americans who are pro-impeachment eventually, their numbers forcing the votes of the necessary senatorial republicans. All from people speaking in their unique ways, all voices cerebral or passionate, formally educated or not, all kinds, saying Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, we will not stand for you.
If you don't want to be one of those voices, then don't.
One of the major reasons I write on this blog is to - I hope - contribute to and maybe even shift the political conversation in this country. It's like I wanna be my own progressive Bob Vela, moving the Overton Window over to here, when right now it's over there. Do I expect that, just because I am standing here at Big Orange or MLW, sarcastically making fun of Republicans being stupid ignoramuses, that suddenly the attention of the entire country is going to swing toward this blog, and opinions will harden around whatever "outlandish" things are written here?
Seriously.
No, as Susan Something points out, it's our job to let our representatives know where we stand, to make clear to them our agenda. It's our representatives' job to make that agenda happen in the legislative arena. Sometimes part of their making it happen includes being cautious and deliberate in their choice of words - that's why they are politicians. And, frankly, I think, upon much reflection these past few days, that Nancy Pelosi's assertion that impeachment is "off the table" was a brilliant political move. "Off the table" doesn't mean it's out of the Constitution. Pelosi and the Democrats don't owe the Republicans a goddamned thing with respect to saying that impeachment is "off the table" - she owes the American people her fealty to the oath she took as a representative in the United States Congress:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
I don't see anything in that oath about "except for those parts which might be politically inconvenient to enforce." No, Speaker Pelosi will lead a House that will do its job under the Constitution. Here's the preamble to that document that she (and Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rice) swore to support and defend:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My middle-school daughter last night recited to me that Preamble; it's an extra credit assignment for her history class. How will I explain to her that, well, actually, sweetie, not every part of that Constitution means what it says. The president doesn't actually have to administer the laws that Congress passes. Congress doesn't actually have to "establish justice." And that Article II, Section 4 part? -
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
- well, they really meant to write "may be removed from office," but somehow someone's quill slipped, and it came out, "shall be removed from office."
So while I understand Speaker Pelosi's choosing to say that impeachment is "off the table" - a very judicious choice of words - I also want her to understand that a large part of her constituency - indeed, a large proportion of the American people - believe that the prima facie case for impeachment has already been made by the President's own admissions, and to do anything less than to press forward diligently with the investigations that must needs precede any potential impeachment would be nothing less than a dereliction of Congress's duties under the Constitution - the Constitution that every member of Congress is sworn to uphold and defend.
Let's not run away from this talk of impeachment because of something the Republicans did. The group of vermin that has been the Republican leadership over the past 12 years didn't just sully the good name of "impeachment" and "investigation" through their mind-boggling dereliction of duty since 1994 - they sullied and devalued the very idea of governance, of "democracy," of "national security," of "patriotism." Does that mean we should abandon talk of governance, of democracy, of national security, of patriotism? Hell, no - of course not. No one would argue that. So why are we having this discussion about using the word "impeachment" just because the Republicans made a mockery of it?
The Republicans have made a mockery of everything having to do with good government - that doesn't mean we should abandon good government. The Republicans have made a mockery of the Constitution - that does not mean we should abandon the Constitution. There is much that is good that the Republicans have made a mockery of, that should not be abandoned. Compassion. Family values. Christianity. Education. Free enterprise. Democracy itself.
Screw the Republicans - I'm not gonna let them drive this debate. Oversight and impeachment were in the Constitution long before this crop of ne'er-do-well mendacious troglodytes came along. These thieves, drunks, hypocrites, liars, mass murderers, war criminals, torturers, slave creators, sexual predators, and demifascists will be relegated to the slag heap of history soon enough; I expect the Constitution, however, will hold up much better. But only if we support it.
If we have learned anything from this past election cycle, it should be that we do not allow Republicans to frame the debate, especially a debate in which they have absolutely no moral standing. To even consider for a nanosecond what any Republican has to say on the matter of prospective exercise of the impeachment clause of the Constitution is beyond ludicrous. And, as I hope this diary has shown, the same holds true on the matter of investigations.
Talk about "concern trolls" - you'd better believe every single, culpable, dirty-handed criminal Republican in and now recently out of office is concerned about investigations, and potential impeachment. The idea that they will actually be held accountable for the many, many, many disasters they have created and benefited from over the past 12 years is a concept the horror of which they can barely grasp. I hope it keeps them awake at night, or at the very least wakens them screaming in the middle of the night, realizing that their judgment day on this earth is at hand.
What the Republicans did during Clinton’s administration was nothing more than pandering and gamesmanship. That does not get votes, once the voters find out they’ve been had. What gets votes are principled stands. We kept our powder dry during the Supreme Court nominations – look what that got us. No more keeping our powder dry. Principled stands sell. True democracy sells. Real government – responsible governing – sells.
The American people want that. The American people want to see a demonstration that Democrats – indeed, all members of Congress – are serious about that, with serious, responsible, sober investigations conducted with the end in mind of enforcing the highest law of the land, not stupid junior-high-school witch hunts, based on nothing.
If that happens, as I wrote in a comment the other day,
By pursuing diligent, responsible investigations, Democrats will raise the bar on such investigations to the point that they will offer such a stark contrast to the Clinton circus that no Republican will mention the word "impeachment" in public again for 50 years, for fear of being publicly humiliated.
</rant>