Regrettably, it does not seem that Congress will be impeaching Bush and Cheney, even though those two probably warrant impeachment more than any holders of high office in American history.
Fortunately, there may be an alternative to impeachment that is more feasible in the present political environment, and that might accomplish at least some of the same essential purposes.
Impeachment (and conviction) would accomplish two main things. First, it would remove from power two men who have done, and continue to do, extraordinary damage to the American constitutional system and to American interests and values generally. Second, it would help to awaken the American public to the true nature of this Bushite regime, and to educate them about the crimes and lies that have pervaded the Bushite use of the great power with which they were entrusted.
For the first purpose --the removal from power-- there is no substitute for impeachment. Even thought there remain less than a year and a half left in their term of office, that is regrettable: the regime still has, or at least can claim and exercise, the power to launch another ill-conceived war.
But for the second purpose --the awakening and the education of the American public-- there may be an alternative.
That possible alternative is what I'd like to propose now.
IT ONLY TAKES ONE EMINENT LEADER
Imagine that some very prominent, highly respected Democrat were to make the following kind of speech, and issue the following kind of challenge. (It would be even better if it were a group of such Democrats, and better still if the group included Republicans, but one prominent figure would suffice, so long as he or she could command significant attention from the major media.)
The speech would first boldly and forcefully lay out the basic, dark truth that Americans need to hear about this regime, i.e. the truth that would presumably have been persuasively conveyed to the American people in the course of impeachment hearings in the House and trial in the Senate.
Perhaps one could sum up the various pieces of the truth by saying that this president and vice president have operated an administration more lawless, more dishonest, more destructive than anything ever seen in American history.
Perhaps it could be summed up by saying that this Bushite regime is precisely the kind of threat to America's system of government --to our liberties and rights-- that our Founding Fathers were most concerned to warn us about and to protect us from when they crafted our Constitution.
But besides the summing up, the speech should lay out a good handful of specific propositions --charges-- that support the characterization of this regime as, basically, a criminal enterprise of the very kind for which our Founders gave us impeachment as the remedy.
The speech would be a laying out of an indictment. It would also be a laying down of a gauntlet.
The "gauntlet" refers to the challenge that would accompany the speech.
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS
If there were nothing but a strong indictment of the Bushites from some prominent and respected Democrat --someone perhaps like Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee-- that in itself would be a welcome move. Such a statement alone might even help to awaken some of the American public to how dark and dangerous a power has been governing America. But it is with the addition of the following two-part challenge that the speech could rise to something more impactful.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
I find the idea of asking the senators to put their jobs on the line ludicrous-- not at all unreasonable, but given who we're talking about, just not at all realistic. These guys are more loyal to their paychecks and power.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3853 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1643 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 5:23:46 PM
You're probably right, Rob, that one ought not hold one's breath waiting for a leader in Congress to put his career on the line, though "ludicrous" is probably too dismissive of the possibility. For a whole body of people to take a risk is indeed an unlikelihood, but when one needs but a SINGLE hero, the hope is not so unfounded. "Profiles in courage" may be rare, but they do exist.
Besides which, several things: 1) the offer to put one's job on the line is contingent on the challengers doing the same, which likely permits the offer to remain a bluff; 2) the risk to our hero in this case is only as great as the risk that a jury of Americans would not confirm the set of allegations in the speech, which I would wager would be quite improbable if the indictment is reasonably framed; and finally, 3) if one is in one's 70s or even, as with Robert Byrd, another possible candidate for the job, one's 80s, giving up one's future occupancy of one's seat in Congress is giving up a good of rather finite duration.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 6:33:03 PM
You need to get Ted Turner and Barack Obama to smoke a peace pipe while the evil cabal has their annual retreat. Maybe invite Borat too.
Actually, I liked your piece. It is a good idea. The public would jump at it like a starved wolf on a reindeer carcass. It would be the biggest reality TV series ever.
Maybe Ron Paul could try launching such a crusade, say, if he pulls into second place or something. He could challenge Ghoulie Ani's forthrightness while leading the swoop. There is lots the "court" could ask about the cleanup and Building 7.
by
Peter Dearman (8 articles, 15 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 113 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 11:24:50 AM
But too easy to propose that someone else put their job on the line.
Like, for the Shrubies, proposing that someone else put their lives on the line (Hey, you signed up for this deal, sucker. Go fight and die--that'll keep you quiet--and we'll even sneak you and your coffin back into good 'ol CONUS via Dover AFB under cover of a "sensitivity" press blackout so hardly anyone'll know you're dead. And then fight your survivors if they try to collect death benefits.)
The only way, IMHO, to get the attention of our "representatives" is to write to them (e-mail, so's to bypass the anthrax-testing bottleneck) every single day--"them" being the staff member of the Congressperson who has been assigned to cover "government affairs" and the reëlection campaign. With a CC: to newspapers, radio, TV, cable news ops in the Congp's' district/state.
Unless you've got a $10 million pot to put up for the "winner of the 'non-binding' impeachment debate."
Bottom line, I fear, is, it's either money or votes. Bad PR means a threat to votes. Money means you don't really have to worry about votes, 'cuz you can sway the emotions of us stupid ol' Americans with 30-second smear 'n' fear spots, if they're outrageous enough and repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated enough. (What leads to "conventional wisdom"? "Talking Points" or "the propaganda line", repeated...you get my point, no?)
The other bit is to do what codepink's done--rent a crash pad in DC and build your own C-Street operation ("C" for Citizen), where you go visit the CongP's and/or staffs no less than once a week--daily'd be better. Just haunt the rotunda, the cloakroom(s), and the halls of the [alpha][S or H]OB.
There's something even more compelling than bucks or bad press--and that's the physical presence of a concerned voter.
But, without money, that compulsion lasts about two months--the time between election night and the oath of office. Then it's back to BASU--business as usual--Semper K.
by
Rick Blair (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 6:29:48 PM
Like Rob I think it’s a nice idea but you’re prescribing an analgesic for a brain tumour.
Simply telling the conservative voter that he was a fool for voting for Bush inc won’t gain anything. Have you ever tried to debate an average believer of ‘intelligent design?’ The more you threaten them the more entrenched/ doctrinal they become. Their last resort to dismiss you is “high criticism” (what ever that is).
What many Dems etc. miss is the reasons most vote conservative. It has more to do with their need for simple solutions than legalities. Most believe they are right and if pushed it’s a plot or the law is wrong (against God’s law and who is going to go against God).
So any solution to the problem needs to address the disease ratherjust a symptom. Like in medicine failure to do this would merely fester the already toxic resentment that exists betweenthe waring parties
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 7:34:56 PM
There's more to the American electorate than Bush's diehards
I, too, would not concern myself with trying to convince those who still support BUsh that they've been conned, or that they're deluded.
But writing off that 30 % still leaves us with 70 %, most of whom do not fully grasp what an extraordinarily criminal bunch has been running the country. Many of those people, I suspect, are not beyond reach of being persuaded by evidence and logic.
And getting a more general understanding --and repudiation-- of the evils of this regime would be salutary for America, helping us get past this dark period and perhaps better enable us to restore some integrity to our political system.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 8:19:54 PM
The democrats have a majority in the House, they have a majority in the Senate, they have a very large amount of money at their disposal and the ability to raise even more, thus they have a bully pulpit available to them , one they refuse to use.
Rather than believing any republican leader willing to engage in such sophomoric pipe dreams one might be better served in wondering why democrats have not held town forums in every major city across the land expounding upon the endless lies and distortions of Bush and company.
Why, because they are a part and parcel of the problem, not an avenue to a solution, thats why.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 9:17:52 PM
What strikes me --not just here on this thread, but more generally of late-- is how deep has lately become the despair among people such as congregate here on opednews (and, of course, elsewhere).
Perhaps such despair has become realism. Surely, there have been disappointments aplenty.
My point, then, is not to criticize --though I do believe we are best off not allowing despair to triumph over hope, for through our despair the darkness gains ground-- but simply to remark upon it.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 9:23:24 PM
You see negative response to Democratic Party complicity as despair, which it is certainly not. That would be because you are a Centrist Democrat loyal to the figment of what you believe your Party to stand for, what it once did indeed stand for.
I see the increasing tide of opposition to the lies, complicity, inaction and selling out of the Democrats to the same monied forces that own the GOP as something quite different namely; a new tide in American politics, one that will sweep the monied class from its position of ultimate power and restore our government to those who really own it, we the people.
Get on board or get left behind.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 6:33:17 AM
The alternative to impeachment is the acceptance of elective tyranny. Anything short of the removal of George W. Bush as President of the United States will write into history his odious, unconstitutional actions as precedence, and therefore, acceptable to the next President, Democratic or Republican. Power once given or consented to, and thus expanded, is difficult, if not impossible, to revoke.
Failure to impeach Bush, and hold him accountable for his egregious transgressions, will only further erode the infirmed state of America's democracy.
There are no alternatives to impeachment, only submission, deference, and the admission of defeat to a megalomaniac madman who rules by fear and not the rule of law.
by
Frank J. Ranelli (63 articles, 143 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 365 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 1:12:28 AM
As been said, art often imitates life and then personifies it. In Herman Melville's Moby Dick, the tyrannical captain Ahab ultimately dooms the crew and his ship, the Pequod, to death, due to his singular obsession with Moby Dick. During the final chase, Ahab hurls his final harpoon while yelling, "From hell's heart I stab at thee!"
Bush's "surge" may be his final "stab at thee."
Bush's monomaniacal desire to redeem himself – just at Ahab aims to avenge himself from the great whale – from the unredeemable act of perpetual, elective war, may be the obligatory harpoon that dooms us all. Thus, America is dragged into the cold sea of oblivion, inevitably drowning our nation in a pool of misguided and wrongly directed revenge.
Short of mutiny and insurrection, impeachment is the only sufficient remedy we have left from an unreasoned and irrational man who sees, but has no vision.
by
Frank J. Ranelli (63 articles, 143 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 365 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 1:18:30 AM
Bush (and Condi too) is a "true believer", and an evangelical, the worst of the breed. A person like this, who sees his life as the result of God's plan -- and why wouldn't he? He was a jackass for whom nothing could ever go wrong even when everything was always going horribly wrong. -- should never be given the job of being President. It would play to his greatest psychological weakness. Let us pray they didn't actually give him sole power to launch a nuclear attack. Don't think about mini-nukes.
by
Peter Dearman (8 articles, 15 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 113 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 11:36:34 AM
Andrew. I sympathize with what you are hoping for, however:
No one in congress pays any attention to such things. Many of us writers here on OpEdNews have written articles saying the words you put into the mouth of the mythical congressperson and we have sent copies to congress people to no avail. There are a flurry of things congress could do, should do, but they are not doing them. They are not because regardless of their label they are all in this together with the Fascists.
They could impeach, but they do not.
They could appoint Special Prosecutors, but they do not.
They could refuse to send the president the money for war, but they do not.
They could repeal the Military commissions Act of 2006, but they do not.
They could write a bill banning the president from eavesdropping but they do not.
They could EFFECTIVELY outlaw Signing Statements, but they do not.
They could have Bush and Cheney arrested for high treason, for lying to congress, for contempt of congress, for murder, theivery etc. etc. etc, but they do nothing.
They could file lawsuits against him for everything under the sun, including Class Action Lawsuits, but they do not. I could go on writing what they Could do all day. They do none of the above and more because they fear that they cannot muster enough votes to pass any of these things, or because he will veto them. They do nothing because there is NO Democratic Party, it is gone the way of the Dinosaur. There are people who run as Democrats, but are not.
They are also afraid that if they withhold the money the Bushites will stage a military disaster and say it occured because congress, the "Dems" held up the money and caused people to die, and he might go after them under the Patriot Act.
And, they don't do it because they have embraced evil themselves in many of its manifestations and because they are getting rich and because Clinton opposed the wishes of Texas and got Impeached and ML King, JFK, RFK all opposed the Cowboy Industrialist rule and got assassinated, and the ones we elected won't die for us, or for scraps of paper like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And finally, they don't do it because of Nancy Pelosi's Puppeteer, fund raiser.
Thassit, 'Nough said?
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1313 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 5:51:00 AM
wholeheartedly. But I think, on the grassroots basis we can do a lot. How about denying residence to any candidate who is not anti-war? How about symboic tribunals findign Bush guilty? How about boycotting any debates if those are not about Bush and his crimes? How about boycotting all the campaign headquarters?
Now, people who have to do all that must have time, free time. Thus I am saying again= all of the above is possible only if there is an Emergency Convention and a People's Front is proclaimed. Otherwise nothing will happen.
As for seeming despair- Andy, we are lucky here. Most of us are smart. And smart means also no naive and not deliberately stupid. No despair, just cool realism.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3364 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 8:08:22 AM
Actually I wrote more than once about mock tribunals and I think you have a great idea there (a modest way of also complementing myself) and I recall they did quite a few during Viet Nam. I can't remember how many times they convicted and hung Johnson in effigy.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1313 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 8:38:54 AM
The publishing of this ludicrous thinking does harm to the worthy and necessary efforts to impeach Bush/Cheney. And by the way, impeachment does not remove anyone from office; that takes conviction by the Senate.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 473 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 8:45:36 AM
What I especially like is the fact that you are proposing actions, rather than just offering more words. Many people posting comments will not offer any suggestions, just criticism of other people’s ideas.
I don’t think that the Dems are going to snap out of their slumber, as they inactively watch the Republican party melt down. They have adopted a “don’t interfere with Republican self immolation” policy, and I doubt we can talk them out of that inaction.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 9:55:46 AM
Everyone. When we enter an article to comment or read we should click the Diggit Button, it helps cirulation and prominence of the article. Perhaps also we might leave comments when we Diggit.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1313 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 10:05:57 AM
I'm no typist, but I have signed up for Digg, Furl, and a host of different sites that I spend time reading at. Leaving comments is like leaving breadcrumbs for people who surf by later. And the Digging and Furling helps because people really do use those sites for search. You should try it. You may get better results than with Google for some things. Also, Furl lets you save an archive of the page you bookmark and tag. I think Furl uses collaborative filterin, so the stuff you Furl really does get looked at (and Furled) by others, often much later. Digg is more of an at-the-moment newsfeed. Perhaps that's why people don't leave so many comments there, but I usually enjoy the comments people do leave.
by
Peter Dearman (8 articles, 15 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 113 comments)
on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 11:49:09 AM
