It is time to be done with Donald
Trump.
As a practical matter, the United
States and the world cannot wait for this racist con man and cheat to finish
the term that the majority of Americans never wanted him to begin. The voters
rejected his candidacy on November 8, 2016. It was an anachronistic
Constitutional construct—an Electoral College established to thwart the will of
the people—that allowed the poseur who lost the popular balloting to become
President.
Americans should not hesitate to
employ far worthier Constitutional constructs, including those establishing the
authority of the Congress to impeach elected despots, to remove him from
office. Immediately.
The urgent need to extract this
shambling son of privilege from a position for which he is shockingly
unqualified and demonstrably unfit has very little to do with politics—even
Republicans, in their honest moments, acknowledge that Trump is a miserable
excuse for a President—and very much to do with the ticking of the clock.
Activists cannot wait any longer for
Democratic leaders in the Congress to lead in the direction that Democrats
across America desire.
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body that is responsible for
assessing science related to climate change, issued its “Special
Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C” in October 2018. The U.K. newspaper The
Guardian gave us the bottom line as a headline: “We Have Twelve
years to Limit Climate Change Catastrophe, Warns U.N.” Debra Roberts, the
co-chair of the panel’s working group on impacts, described the report as “a
line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and
we must act now. This is the largest clarion bell from the science community
and I hope it mobilizes people and dents the mood of complacency.”
Clarion call. Check. We have twelve
years in which to begin to take meaningful action to save the planet. Luckily,
we know how to do it.
“We have presented governments with
pretty hard choices,” says Jim Skea, a co-chair of the U.N. panel’s working
group on mitigation. “We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to
1.5°C, and also the unprecedented shift in energy systems and transport that
would be needed to achieve that. We show it can be done within laws of physics and
chemistry.”
Can be done. Check. “Then,” says
Skea, “the final tick box is political will. We cannot answer that. Only our
audience can—and that is the governments that receive it.”
Government action. Uh-oh.
The government of the United States,
the country with less than 5 percent of the global population that consumes roughly a quarter of the world’s
fossil fuel resources, is not going to act while Donald Trump remains as
President. Trump is a climate-change denier who has been labeled the “the most
relentlessly anti-environmental President in modern U.S. history.” He used his
latest State of the Union Address to brag about how the
United States is “the number-one producer of oil and natural gas in the world.”
If we want to save the planet, Trump
needs to go. Fast.
This is where the clock comes in.
When the U.N. report was published, Trump was not even two years into his
four-year term. He has since passed the halfway mark, but not by much. That’s
problematic if we have a finite amount of time to address a scorching crisis.
We have twelve years to act. Yet
roughly one sixth of that time—the better part of two years—will be
characterized not just by inaction but by this President’s determined efforts
to hasten the burning of the planet.
What if the United Nations erred on
the optimistic side? What if we have only ten years? Or eight years? And what
about the other issues on which Trump is steering the country in precisely the
wrong direction at precisely the wrong time?
As the President tweets and poses, a
radical transformation of our work life has already begun: Traditional jobs are
giving way to freelance gigs, driverless cars are veering onto our highways,
self-checkout stations are replacing human cashiers.
According to a McKinsey Global
Institute study, we’re about to experience a new machine age in which
automation could eliminate as many as 800 million jobs
worldwide. The Verge reports that “in the
U.S. alone, between thirty-nine and seventy-three million jobs stand to be
automated—making up around a third of the total workforce.”
With only a handful of years in
which to prepare for the next economy, can we really afford to hand off two of
them to a clueless President who is waging nineteenth-century trade wars in
order to address twenty-first-century employment and wage voids?
What about the fact that a rapidly
diversifying nation is being divided against itself by a racist President
who tells us that there
are some “very fine people” marching with Confederate flags and chanting “Jews
will not replace us”?
Can we really afford to cede month
after month, year after year, to a lifelong bigot who is using his bully pulpit
to spin “Make America Great Again” fantasies in a desperate politics of
thwarting the future? Can we sit idly by as he spews venomous lies about
immigrants, diverts billions of dollars to a vanity border wall, and packs our
courts with Constitution-shredding, dogma-spouting judicial activists?
As a practical matter, the United
States and the world cannot wait for this racist con man and cheat to finish
the term that the majority of Americans never wanted him to begin.
The worst thing about Donald Trump’s
presidency is not what he has done but what he will do
(or not do) with what remains of his term. That’s why Congresswoman Rashida
Tlaib, the Michigan Democrat who gets criticized for
her ardent advocacy for impeachment, is absolutely right when she warns that Trump “has
created a Constitutional crisis that we must confront now.”
Tlaib’s a lawyer. Yet she speaks
about Trump not merely in the language of “high crimes and misdemeanors” but in
a language that recognizes Trump’s presidency as an emergency.
“If we don’t hold impeachment
proceedings today, start them today and hold him accountable to following the
United States Constitution, think about that,” she recently told reporters.
“This is not going to be the last CEO that runs for President of the United
States. This is not going to be the last person that tries to get away with
this.”
There are those who claim that
Tlaib, who was elected last fall, is rushing things. Let’s cut to the chase:
Tlaib is right. The go-slow crowd is wrong.
The standard expectations for the
impeachment and removal of Donald J. Trump as President were met long ago.
According to the premises outlined in the Constitution, and clarified by the
House Judiciary Committee with the articles of impeachment that were approved
during the Watergate crisis, Trump is fully impeachable.
The “Legal Case for a Congressional
Investigation on Whether to Impeach President Donald J. Trump,” a
white paper published in late 2017 and updated by Constitutional lawyers Ron
Fein, John Bonifaz, and Ben Clements, details how he has obstructed justice,
violated the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, conspired with others
to commit crimes against the United States and then attempted to conceal these
crimes, advocated violence and undermined equal protection under the law,
abused the pardon power, engaged in conduct that grossly endangers the peace
and security of the United States, directed law enforcement to investigate and
prosecute political adversaries for improper and unjustifiable purposes,
undermined the freedom of the press, and violated campaign finance laws.
The facts of the President’s
wrongdoing, as established even before the narrowly focused inquiry by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller (which notably, “does not exonerate” Trump from
allegations of obstruction of justice), were more than sufficient to warrant the
conclusion of Congressman Steve Cohen, the Tennessee Democrat who chairs the
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties. Cohen joined a few other Democrats in filing articles of
impeachment against Trump in November 2017, declaring: “The time has
come to make clear to the American people, and to this President, that his
train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through
impeachment.”
Of course, the time has come for the
Constitutional remedy to the Constitutional crisis that is Donald Trump’s
presidency.
But the Constitutional arguments, as
compelling as they may be, have not been enough to get more than a handful of House members to
entertain necessary action. That’s why upping the ante, focusing on the urgency
of removing Trump, and on uprooting Trumpism, is the necessary and practical
response to a presidency that cannot be allowed to continue.
The challenge when it comes to Trump
is no longer Trump. He is a tragic figure who is melting down before our eyes,
an incoherent mess of a man who recently ranted for two hours
in front of the dead-enders at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
The problem is the political calculus of the leaders of what pass for parties
in the United States.
The overwhelming majority of
Congressional Republicans continue to give their party’s President a pass, even
as honest Republicans, such as former Florida Congressman David Jolly, explain “that the bar
for impeachment has already been met and that Trump is Constitutionally
compromised.”
Jolly argues, correctly, that “these
are extraordinary times. They must be confronted as such. To do otherwise—to
deal constructively with this President as a credible political leader—only
normalizes for all of history the damage he has already wrought upon the
presidency and the nation. Traditional oversight hearings are simply
insufficient. Discussion of impeachment should be seriously presented to the
American people now by [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate Minority Leader
Charles] Schumer. And in so doing, they will set a narrative that relegates
this President to one deserving only dishonor.”
Unfortunately, Pelosi and Schumer
are not taking their counsel from David Jolly or their own party’s base. Just
as top Republicans continue to defend a President who has been characterized by his
former chief of staff as “unhinged,” so top Democrats can’t quite bring
themselves to upend a President they know to be manifestly unfit.
Pelosi, Schumer, and their enablers
take their cues from a consultant class that focuses Democratic energy on
delivering the politics of low expectations favored by major campaign donors
and the lobbying establishment—in contrast to the energetic and inspired
politics favored by the party’s base. They err invariably on the side of a drab
and managerial caution.
Pelosi says we must all “wait
and see.” But that’s absurd. We waited through Paul Ryan’s failed speakership,
from January 2017 to January 2019. We saw Trump openly admit to obstruction of
justice when he declared on national
television that he had fired former FBI director James Comey because of “this
Russia thing.” (It is true that Mueller’s inquiry “did not establish that members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities,” but it is also true that issues arising from the
Comey firing were on the table for Congressional consideration. Trump wants us
to believe that the convoluted conclusion of the Mueller investigation lifted
the clouds over his presidency. But, as House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry
Nadler has said: “It is unconscionable
that President Trump would try to spin the special counsel’s findings as if his
conduct was remotely acceptable.”)
We have also seen Trump attack press freedom
and label critical media outlets “enemies of the people”; give aid and comfort
to racists at home; and laud strongmen, dictators, and outright fascists
abroad.
We have seen him deny climate
change, pass tax cuts for the rich, attack health care protections, forcibly
separate migrant children from their parents, gut net neutrality,
and pack the federal bench with creep-show characters whose judicial activism
denies women’s rights, voting rights, and labor rights.
We’ve seen enough. That’s why nearly
nine million more voters backed Democratic U.S.
House candidates in 2018 than they did Trump-defending Republicans. That’s why
twelve million more voters favored Democratic
U.S. Senate candidates over Republicans. If the United States followed the same
democratic practices as most of the democracies with which we care to compare
ourselves, Trump’s tenure would have ended after the 2018 election delivered a
resounding “no confidence” vote.
That is the desire of the Democrats
who form the party’s base. A February 2019 Morning Consult report announced: “Appetite for
Impeachment Surges Among Democratic Voters.” In January, 39 percent of
Democrats indicated that they wanted to make the impeachment of Trump the “top
priority” for Congressional Democrats. By February, the “top priority” number
was at 53 percent.
Only 8 percent of Democrats now say
impeachment should be avoided.
In response to this groundswell of
sentiment, Congressional Democrats should proudly present the
investigations initiated by the House
Judiciary Committee and other Congressional committees as part of a process
intended to bring Trump’s presidency to an end.
Yes, holding Presidents to account
can be “divisive,” as Pelosi noted in late
February, after Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House
Oversight and Reform Committee revealed textbook examples of impeachable
offenses—and rank criminality. But they should never avoid divisive issues as
part of a political calculus that negates the oath they took as
members of Congress to “support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and
allegiance” to this duty.
Democratic “leaders” are committing
the same sin that Republicans commit, and for the same reason: because they are
trying to secure a political advantage.
If Pelosi and Schumer and their
cautious caucus signaled that it was their urgent and unequivocal mission to
end Trump’s presidency, they would generate excitement and support. If
Democrats started talking about impeaching and removing Trump as necessary and
appropriate, if they took their 2018 success as a signal that it is time to
act, and if they dared House and Senate Republicans to stop them, they would
focus the debate as one of their bravest and best members, Texas Congressman Al
Green, has tried to do.
Green began arguing for
impeachment and accountability two years ago, as the full threat posed by
Trump’s continued tenure was becoming apparent. For a long time, he said on the House
floor on March 6, “I had to fend off the multitudes who wanted to know ‘What
crime did the President commit?’ We had to fight that fight and we won because
it is now generally perceived and believed that the President does not have to
commit a crime to be impeached.”
Green rejects the “wait and see”
approach. “If you are corrupting society, if you are creating harm to society,
if you are causing things to happen in society that are unacceptable to the
people in the United States of America,” the Congressman says, “an unfit
President can be impeached for those misdeeds that corrupt and harm society.”
This is the language that Democrats
should be speaking. But Pelosi and Schumer and most of the Democratic “leaders”
who appear on the cable channels continue to play politics with the country’s
fate and the planet’s future. They lack the sense of urgency that has energized
and encouraged grassroots Democrats since the party won control of the House
last November.
Democratic “leaders” are committing
the same sin that Republicans commit, and for the same reason: because they are
trying to secure a political advantage.
Top Congressional Republicans keep
impeachment and other Constitutional remedies off the table because they want
to maintain as much power as they can going into 2020, even if
they must compromise their principles and abandon the best interests of the
country. Top Congressional Democrats keep impeachment and Constitutional
remedies off the table because they want to be in a position, vis-à-vis a
steadily weaker Trump, to gain as much power as they can in
2020, even if they must compromise their principles and abandon the best
interests of the country.
After Trump declared a national
emergency in order to divert billions of federal dollars into building a wall
along the U.S.-Mexico border that was unauthorized by the Congress, Pelosi and
Schumer declared that they
would use “every remedy available” to oppose this stark abuse of power. But
Trump continues to abuse his power. The abuse will continue. The crisis will
continue. Until he is removed.
Making Trump’s removal the “top
priority” that grassroots Democrats favor is the beginning of the honest
discussion that many Americans say they want. This course rejects “wait and
see” hand-wringing about “divisive” politics and opts instead for values-driven
governance that has the potential to resonate with the great mass of Americans
who never wanted Trump to be President in the first place.
This is the answer to the “What
about Pence?” question that is still mumbled by those who complain about Trump
but are unprepared to act against Trumpism. Stating clearly and unequivocally
that it is time to remove Trump because of the damage he is doing as President,
and the damage that he will continue to do for so long as he is President, sets
the standard. It says that whoever takes over from Trump—be it Pence or anyone
else—will not be allowed to perpetuate Trumpism in the absence of its namesake.
Democrats and independents and
Republicans who have any concern for the future are called to this mission. But
it does not become serious, it does not become real, until the equivocation
ends and a sense of urgency is embraced by what is supposed to be an “opposition
party.” The task then, is to dial the urgency up to eleven. This is where the
base of the Democratic Party and the independent progressives who align with
it—the people who did the most to elect an accountability Congress in 2018—must
step up.
Activists cannot wait any longer for
Democratic leaders in the Congress to lead in the direction that Democrats
across America desire. “There’s this enormous disconnect,” explains Kevin Mack,
the lead strategist for Need to Impeach, the group
that billionaire Tom Steyer has created to build support for a Constitutional
remedy. Responding to the Morning Consult poll, Mack argues that “we’re
actually the mainstream. The members of Congress are the outliers.”
He says Democratic members of
Congress are “going to have to get pressure from their districts.” To that end,
Need to Impeach is stepping up its campaigning (as Steyer explains in a new
interview with The Progressive in this issue). Republicans in
swing districts and reluctant House Democrats, including the chairs of key
committees, will feel the pressure. Need to Impeach will organize town hall
meetings and launch television, radio, direct mail, and social media campaigns.
This isn’t about generating a sense
of urgency. That already exists. The point is to communicate to the American
people, to the media outlets that police rather than promote debate, and to the
leaders of the Congress, that it is Constitutionally and politically
appropriate to make the removal of the President an immediate aim. It is
appropriate because of the high crimes and misdemeanors that we know Donald
Trump has committed. It is appropriate because of the damage that Donald
Trump’s policies have done already, and because of the damage that we know the
continuation of his presidency will do. The time for waiting and seeing is
over. This is a “fierce urgency of now” moment. Representative Al Green is
right to warn against delay.
“We can investigate to the extent
that we engage in what Dr. King called the ‘paralysis of analysis.’ Just
investigate until it’s time for another election. And then the election becomes
the focal point,” he said on the House
floor in March. “My dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, those who
desire to wait may do so. I will not wait.”
Nor should any American.
No comments:
Post a Comment