Why does the Democratic "leadership" oppose such an approach? I think it has four main reasons, all of them surmountable.
1. Pure cowardice. Democrats are not craftily pretending to not want to impeach Trump until after they win a majority, after which they'll all spring it on him. That's not how U.S. politics works. If the ever-rightwarding handful of "centrist" voters for whom Democratic candidates will traditionally sacrifice tens of thousands of left-leaning constituents don't want impeachment now, they won't want it then, unless something is done to change their minds. If people think they're going to get impeachment after another election without clamoring for it now, they haven't paid attention to the last several dozen elections. You have to raise your demand and press for it, and if there's an election make it an election issue. And even then your chances will remain slim, but they'll be increased.
2. Strategy. When the Democrats won the majority in 2006, and the exit polls showed the top issue to be ending the war on Iraq, Rahm Emanuel told the Washington Post that they'd keep the war going (in fact they escalated it) in order to campaign "against" it again in 2008. It's important to keep working on trying to get some small fraction of people to understand that this is the big reason that the Democrats want Trump around. Look at their constant campaigning: they are the anti-Trumps. Their reasoning is the same as that of the CEO of CBS who said that Trump might be bad for the United States but he sure was good for ratings. He may destroy the world, but he sure is good (so Democrats imagine) for Democratic election campaigns. The same Democrats will also do nothing to challenge presidential power. The same Democrats will focus for another two years on running the worst possible candidate they can find in another election against Trump. All of this gives "strategy" a bad name, but we have to recognize that that is what it's meant to be. Then we have to change it.
3. Complicity. The serious Draft Articles of Impeachment include these charges:
- Violation of Constitution on Domestic Emoluments
- Violation of Constitution on Foreign Emoluments
- Incitement of Violence
- Interference With Voting Rights
- Discrimination Based On Religion
- Illegal War
- Illegal Threat of Nuclear War
- Abuse of Pardon Power
- Obstruction of Justice
- Politicizing Prosecutions
- Collusion Against the United States with a Foreign Government
- Failure to Reasonably Prepare for or Respond to Hurricanes Harvey and Maria
- Separating Children and Infants from Families
- Illegally Attempting to Influence an Election
The leading non-Russiagate topics involve corruption. The entity we're looking to for a solution is . . . Congress. Do I really have to say more? But with some of these charges, less of Congress is complicit than with others. In fact, Congress runs up against Trump quite frequently. Recently, Trump published a Bush-Obama-esque signing statement announcing his right to ignore some ridiculously teeny restrictions that Congress had placed on U.S. participation in genocide in Yemen. At that point, Congress can (a) cut off funding for any actions in violation of the law, or (b) impeach the president (and "a" would almost certainly lead to "b" which is certainly why Congress is not doing "a") or (c) admit to being a glorified collection of court jesters clinging to the pretense of power that was given away some decades back. So, we need to pick the charges carefully, with consideration for the interests of corrupt Congress members in mind. I suspect that these would be most easily moved if anything can be:
But we cannot lose sight of problem number 1 above: cowardice.
4. Pencedread. The horror of President Pence is very strong in millions of self-appointed Democratic strategists. I think eight years of Trumpism unchallenged is the surest path to a dangerous President Pence in a political system in which the title "president" may not even seem accurate any longer to most people. I think a popular revolt that imposes a serious impeachment on a reluctant Congress is the surest path to a Pence Presidency that is less nasty, less brutish, and more short. I'd prefer a President Pence watching over his shoulder to a President Trump granted total license to destroy -- How's the latter working out so far? If we get to recognition of climate apocalypse, or if we get to nuclear apocalypse, what consolation will it be that we fended off President Pence? Pencedread is a symptom of a worldview that has already abandoned all hope. Everything good lies in a different direction.
Of course the popularity of impeachment can matter, if it gets big enough and loud enough and active enough and smart enough. I recommend we try.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
