Cross-posted at The Crossed Pond, so this comes less from a Democratic perspective and more from the perspective of anyone who calls themselves a conservative, and means it.
I’ve come around to the idea that the only way to challenge this administration is Keyser Soze style, being willing to go farther than they are, or being willing to go farther than they think you have the stomach for. This position is not an emotive one on my part; it's not born of disgust, or anger, or whatever else. Rather, I feel at this point, it's a collected, measured, rational response to the situation as defined by circumstances and, more importantly, the administration itself. It's gotten to the point where impeachment becomes not an option as a last resort anymore, but as the go-to modus operandi for dealing with the administration at every level, for every battle. It is a response simply demanded by situation.
I should say right off the bat that I'm not the type of person to endlessly call for impeachment, prosecution for war crimes, recall, government shutdown, or any other traditionally "last resort" style hardball tactics in the case of those whose politics I disagree with. There are some who are, and there's nothing wrong with that per se (particularly in the case of this administration, for whom any of those tactics would be justified, where possible), I just tend to reflexively shy away from that sort of thing (and on that, I think my knee-jerk is pretty indicative of the majority of Americans). I'm no Neil Young; not knocking anybody who is.
That said, there has been a lot of very good posting this last week on the subject of impeachment, but I think a lot of it is missing the point, or getting caught up on the surface issues; the smoke, not the fire. My point is not that this talk goes too far. Rather, it doesn't go far enough.
It’s become clear that the battle between Bush and Congress goes a lot deeper than just the surface stuff they’re currently bickering about. Gonzales, lets face it, should never have been confirmed in the first place, but he's a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Furthermore, BUSH, or general incompetence, or cronyism, or whatever else, are also not the core of the problem (though believe me, they're there, and important). Furthermore, the US Attorneys case, on a case by case issue, is its own ball of wax. Important, but separate.
The problem, at its core, relates to the fundamental structure and dynamics of government in America. The Bush position represents a walkback from over 200 years of our country’s Standard Operating Procedure, and a critical new reading of what the constitution means, or doesn’t mean, primarily concerned with the executive branch as some kind of super-government, not on par with the other branches, but hierarchically above them, beyond them, with only a tenuous, pittance of a connection that they need worry about. The frightening part is, they’re winning more battles than they’re losing on this subject, precisely because nobody seems to ever want to pull the trigger against the executive (and by that I mean impeachment, subpoena, filibuster, whatever), and because that fundamental restatement of the American experiment is going unchallenged except at the most surface levels.
I’ve spoken a lot about the imperial executive, which, to my mind, is the single biggest legacy that the Bush administration actively wishes to impart. Let's face it, it's the core of the Bush administration. It was the common denominator for their Supreme Court picks, a huge chunk of their friction with Congress is the more or less stated belief that the executive branch doesn’t have to answer to anybody, and a lot of times when they handle things badly so much so that even their supporters wonder "why the hell didn’t they just do X and Y?", the reason, often enough, is because to do X and Y would in some way acknowledge a legitimacy of the check and balance system of the United States government, anathema to this administration (and so they often get into hot water that could have been averted, but they’re willing to take the heat for the sake of, often behind the scenes, parrying away any precedent or legitimacy for oversight).
You’ll often note that most of their late-stage "compromises" seem to almost totally reverse their earlier positions (military commissions, NSA wiretapping, etc), until you realize that the "position" had less to do with the surface issues and more to do with the inner machinations, and in the end they can throw the issue overboard to get a de facto authorization of their view of how government works, or ought to work from now on (Arlen Specter has been a huge enabler of this tactic, as has John McCain, as has Joe Lieberman, but sometimes Democratic leadership are far more willing to let them get away with this too if they think they can parse a short-term "we won a small victory on X!" out of it). A lot of their in-house behind-the-scenes tactics in dealing with Congress, the courts (want to know what all their nonsense about Padilla and terror suspects at large are about? Hint: it has little if anything to do with the actual suspects or cases involved, and more to do with how they're handled, or not handled), even the press, has less to do with the issue at hand (torture, any particular terror suspect, ability to fire attorneys, privacy rights, whatever) and more to do with a driving and all-important desire to legitimize their view of the executive branch as a detached, separate, super government, the top of a hierarchy rather than a prong of a trident.
I think, if the manifest and stated position of the Bush administration is that the only oversight Congress has over the executive branch is impeachment (and it is), and everything short of that is hollow and ignorable meddling, Congress ought to show him why it is that from impeachment comes oversight, whether you choose to academically recognize it or not.
I don’t want Gonzales’ scalp, mind you. I want the battle to be met. This is the way the architects of the Bush administration are drawing the battlegrounds; to continue to ignore that and just try to sidestep it (while not usually succeeding), or to whine and plead with it, is to, in no small measure, lend it legitimacy. To de facto accept it. To allow it to take root, even while you chop at the stems and try and pluck the low-hanging fruit.
To that end, I would rather impeachment proceedings be initiated against Gonzales now. It’s not that I want him to leave (or rather, it’s not JUST that I want him to leave); I would rather impeachment that might not work than some kind of negotiated resignation, precisely because the latter allows the administration to sidestep once again the direct challenge to the new skeletal structure of government that they’re laying. The time has come to stop fucking around. If the only way the Bush administration feels they have to deal with Congress in any oversight capacity is through impeachment, it's time to initiate impeachment with every oversight issue. Whether it works or not, it makes the point, it sets a precedent that future administrations will be disinclined to take the mantle of (having to deal with impeachment once a month is not something anybody would be eager to beg of the opposition, if they thought you were willing to actually do it), it bares Congress' teeth, which are, quite frankly, in desperate need of baring, less they whither down to nubs by the time Bush leaves office and we're left for generations with a legislative branch that can only nub weakly at the executive, trying to gum them to death.
I also realize that there is associated with hardball opposition the political risk; middle America doesn’t like talk of impeachment, they don’t like such a high level of Washingtonian in-fighting (not that they don’t like in-fighting; they do). Ironically (but not unfortuitously, for them), the Republican party soiled the well for impeachment and hardball Congressional tactics but good during the 90s. However, I think the case could easily be made that Gonzales needs to go, that the administration is stonewalling, that the administration and her architects have decided to rewrite the rules, and so, if any Congress is to have any role in the future in overseeing and balancing the executive branch, their rights need to be vigorously reasserted. Be blunt, be principled, don't be shrill or angry. Say "this is the bed they made; we have no choice if we are to be able to do anything, including what we were elected to do".
I think the Democrats (and growing, if so far lukewarm, choir of principled Republicans) can cast the issue well, if they simply say "We’re done trying to negotiate with this administration, to try and whittle them down to reasonability on each and every bit of minutiae. If they aren’t willing to even accept a base level of playing by the rules, we’re no longer interested in quibbling about the game. At this point, it’s our way or the highway. We’re the referee here, and we’re blowing the whistle. Come in, answer questions under oath, or we’re impeaching everybody we have reason to believe acted inappropriately on anything, and you can answer questions under oath then; and believe me, we’ll be making a list and checking it twice on each and every statement out of your mouths. The American people have demanded accountability. If the administration is absolutely unwilling to be accountable in any capacity short of impeachment, on anything, we are left with no other options. We've spent 7 years begging the administration to be reasonable. They've shown not just an abject unwillingness to bend even a little, but an outright contempt for the entire process, or notion, of oversight and accountability. For the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of constitutional precedent, and for the sake of future generations of Congresses, Presidents, and American voters who believe in some system of checks and balances, we have to do what we're being forced to do." End quote. End debate.
This is the core of the issue, and this is what we, and the Democrats, have been missing. The administration has made it clear that, far from the American position of impeachment as a last resort, they believe impeachment is the first, last, and only resort.
Let's not be afraid to pull that trigger, for the sake of not letting that world-view perseverate and take permanent seed. If you're a conservative, a principled Republican who believes in and respects the constitution (any left?), if your a libertarian leaner who believes in the natural wisdom of coequal (and checked) branches of government, and especially if you're an exasperated Democrat or progressive tired of mouthing at crumbs, it's time to just impeach everybody; starting now.
----------------
A Tory, a Libertarian, and a Democrat walk into a blog....