The Dems are talking up the prospect of impeachment for the president right now because they know what a loser issue that would be for the Republicans, and the Democrats desperately need for the Republicans to obtain for themselves a loser issue that can be wrapped around their necks. They are able to talk it up because even though the Republican leadership is (wisely) dismissing such talk with contempt, there is a high level of frustration with the president’s behavior in the Republican base. The leadership is attempting to vent this frustration with their lawsuit, seeking to head off any talk of impeachment. The last go round with all this, when Clinton was impeached, was disastrous for the Republicans, because they treated ordinary politics as though it were something else. When you start killing ants with a baseball bat, the rest of the story will not go well for you.
For our foreign readers, in our system a president is impeached when the House of Representatives brings articles of impeachment. It is like being indicted — the trial is yet to happen. The House prosecutes the case, and the Senate serves as the jury. Thus when a president is impeached by the House, he will then be convicted (or not) by the Senate.
Up to this point in our history, impeachment has only been on the table three times. The first was when Andrew Johnson was impeached, and barely escaped being removed from office. But this was in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, when something like impeachment was comparatively small beer. The second time was when Richard Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall, and resigned rather than face removal from office. He knew that if his case went before the Senate, there was a high likelihood that he would be convicted. The third time happened with Bill Clinton. He was impeached, but not convicted, and the Republicans had to deal with significant blowback for making the attempt.
In the modern era, the only way impeachment could possibly obtain a conviction would be if the entire country were overwhelmingly united behind the effort. This would have to include both the House and Senate being ready to convict, and it would also be necessary to have the mainstream media — The Washington Post, The New York Times, the major networks, etc. — all calling for the president’s head as well. And let us be honest, you and I. The only way the mainstream media would be at all behind the impeachment of President Obama would be if, at the State of the Union address, the president pulled off his rubber mask and announced that he was an alien creepizoid from the Planet Kenya. And even then, it would be touch and go.
So the reason Republicans (whether in the leadership or in the base) ought not to be talking about impeachment right now is that they don’t have the resources (Luke 14:31). As St. Augustine once succinctly put it in his treatise on just war, don’t start what you can’t finish.
This is quite a separate issue from whether the president deserves to be impeached. Of course he does. And if he actually does what he is now considering — amnesty for millions of illegals via executive order — it would be an example of the very kind of high lawlessness that the provision for impeachment in the Constitution seeks to address. It really would be high crimes and misdemeanors. But the fact that the president is acting lawlessly does not mean that his opposition has the resources — moral, intellectual, or electoral — to deal with it. His behavior is simply a kind of high profile lawlessness that Congress has been complicit in themselves for decades. Obama is only doing in broad daylight what the ruling elite from both parties have been skulking around in — soft despotism — for many years.
In the meantime, unless there is a bloodbath in the midterms that goes against the president in both the House and Senate races, such that conviction if impeached would be a foregone conclusion, the whole discussion ought to be tabled. To eke out articles of impeachment would be disastrous. Lawful indignation over the president’s exercises in the royal prerogative needs to be channeled into the elections 96 days from now. If you cannot succesfully muster your troops, you are unlikely to be successful in the war itself. Failing an election that goes down in history as the Sheet of Flame Midterms, all this talk in Washington about reining Obama in via impeachment is summed up nicely by that apt Polish proverb: “Not my circus, not my monkeys.”
“The only way the mainstream media would be at all behind the impeachment of President Obama would be if, at the State of the Union address, the president pulled off his rubber mask and announced that he was an alien creepizoid from the Planet Kenya. And even then, it would be touch and go.”
Or if he suddenly declared himself a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, small government Conservative. Which, in the media’s eyes, would basically be the same as what you describe above.
I disagree, but I am in no position to lead on this matter.
Peter Brimelow gives a different perspective from NationalReviewWritersInExile
Mr Wilson: What was Augustine’s treatise on just war? When I’ve searched Amazon I’ve mostly found other people commenting on Augustine’s theory or some such, but I haven’t been able to find his actual treatise. I’ve already read City of God. Did he write anything on war besides that?
The plan, it seems to me, will be to d an executive order just before the election and after the election to throw open the border for the next two years. If they haven’t taken the white majority out of existence by then, it will be close. They don’t need Texas if they solidify Ohio and Virginia. They will increase the nanny state over the next two years until it looks like Greece. When the bubble busts, an executive order will be used to drain your bank accounts. When he white man is broke, then the violence really begins. The… Read more »
@Robert
Who cares about white men? I thought this whole thing was about the rule of law.
On this matter, I defer to Jeffrey Lord and Andrew McCarthy
Mark Levin is very perspicuous as well–I cannot link to his radio show or I would.
If you think that racism isn’t a big part of the progressive agenda, then you aren’t paying attention
Rob,
I think that maybe what Robert means is akin to the communist dialectic: thesis/antithesis/synthesis. Embrace and foment an antithesis and then become the synthesis that picks up the pieces and consolidates all of the power. It is a lonstanding statist strategy: Create, encourage and foster racial antipathy, and then play those divisions against each other. Then become the “saviour”.
At least that is how I understood him.
RFB explained it much better than I did. Thanks
Hi Seth,
Look for Augustine’s “Contra Faustum Manichaeum”, book 22. 69 – 76. You can find some of the text at http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_war_contra_faustum.htm.
I know that the term for just war itself comes from The City of God, but I think more of Augustine’s thinking is contained here. I am much more familiar with Aquinas’s teachings on the conditions for just war, so this was something I had not read until recently.
Jill: Thanks!