On Craveness

I have a great deal of sympathy for Ed Kilgore's skepticism about impeachment. Given that there's not a decent prospect of success, the question of whether or not it makes sense for Democrats to embrace this idea amounts to a question of whether or not it makes sense as political positioning. And it's by no means obvious to me that it does make sense as political positioning. That said, once you have the Director of the FBI testifying before congress that the Attorney General of the United States has been lying to them as part of a broad coverup of an illegal spying operation, you're passed the point where impeachment talk is a fringe concern.

Which I why I have to register some dissent from Ed's view "the questions about the 'I-word' need to be honestly addressed, without the presumption that anything less is craven." At the end of the day, the argument Ed's making really is an argument from craveness -- it's the argument that Democrats should fear the results of playing with fire, not the argument that there are no crimes in this neighborhood. Fundamentally, I think the case for craveness has some merit, and I'm not scandalized that lots of politicians don't want to embrace it, but I'm by no means unhappy to see folks with safe seats talking about it. One way or another, investigations need to continue into the domestic spying program, into the US Attorney firings, into the Scooter Libby pardon, etc., etc., etc. and without prejudging the case one should say that insofar as hard evidence (which really is different from "good enough for journalism" evidence) of abuses of power keeps surfacing, that their ought to be consequences.

It's not, after all, as if Bush is reacting to the news that FBI Director Mueller "contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration" by getting mad and sacking Gonzales or anything.

Comments

Well yes, it's nice to see this starting to become a respectable opinion, though you are far too ready to embrace cravenness. I was one of the people who was pretty strongly anti-impeachment until recently, but really the current cover ups and extreme, clearly unconstitutional assertions of executive power seem to me to be about as strong a case for impeachment as there can be. If the thugs get away with this, there really can NEVER be a successful impeachment, as we will have ceded to the executive the unlimited power to cover up misdeeds.

Posted by LarryM | July 27, 2007 9:02 AM

That said, once you have the Director of the FBI testifying before congress that the Attorney General of the United States has been lying to them as part of a broad coverup of an illegal spying operation, you're passed the point where impeachment talk is a fringe concern.

Oh, everyone knows that FBI Directors are almost always former Spartacists who helped Hillary Clinton cover up her thousands of Arkansas murders and who unfairly target Republican politicians who just happen to take a few hundreds of thousands of dollars from their business friends!

Posted by El Cid | July 27, 2007 9:02 AM

The crimes are great. Opponents of impeachment resort to lies. The country hates Bush. What's the debate?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 27, 2007 9:13 AM

Imagine the furor in the media if there had been an intimation of perjury by the AG of a Democratic administration.

If the Republicans have so much power as to get away with this sort of illegal activities, we are all fucked.

Posted by gregor | July 27, 2007 9:36 AM

The impeachment card should have been put on the table some time ago. Not played, but people should know it's there. Someone should have been talking about the reasons for impeachment constantly for the last six months. The question of whether to impeach (and when) doesn't have to be answered right away, but the threat needs to be there, and the rationale needs to be developed.

Kilgore is a horror story in and of himself, but the Democratic party is infested with Pol Sci 101 types who think that they're being tremendously cagey by shifting the argument from political goals to strategies and finally to tactics. (People who think in terms of political goals are naive, unprofessional, and un-Ivy, you see.)

And on top of that, the discussion of tactics is always conducted in full public view so that everyone knows that Democrats are a.) Ivy types smarter than you and b.) tactical thinkers with no serious goals who are incapable of speaking directly to anything, but only function on the meta tactical level..

As a result of all this, the down-to-earth populist appeal has been defaulted over to the Republicans, even though Republican millionaire populism is a transparent fraud.

Posted by John Emerson | July 27, 2007 9:51 AM

While I am pro-impeachment, I understand that we can impeach Bush and Cheney we will not get them out of office until January '09. I still think the threat of impeachment could be used as a cudgel to get Bush to finally move.

What I would like to see Congress put on the table is turning Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld over to the international war crimes tribunal after they leave office unless they get us out of this war. That seems to be the only threat with real potency. Get this cabal out from under the protection of our moneyed interests that put them into power and they would be panicked to think of a way to buy themselves out of it, especially once their backers abandon them in '09.

Posted by Ricky | July 27, 2007 9:53 AM

Doesn't the unitary executive theory increase the likelihood of impeachment? If the executive is unitary, then it is proper that the actions of subordinates are just an expression of the executive, and cannot therefore be used to unseat said executive. However, if prosecuting such cases or inquiries is required by law (e.g. contempt citations issued by congress), then the President is therefore responsible for not upholding the law, and must therefore be impeached. I'd like to see this issue discussed whenever the unitary executive (crap) theory comes up.

Posted by bs23 | July 27, 2007 9:54 AM

I have a great deal of sympathy for Ed Kilgore's skepticism about impeachment. Given that there's not a decent prospect of success, the question of whether or not it makes sense for Democrats to embrace this idea amounts to a question of whether or not it makes sense as political positioning.

Define 'success', please. I find the above statement to be sort of contradictory. On the one hand you evidently cling to a literalistic definition of 'success' (conviction), and on the other, you say that what matters is political positioning.

I have very little sympathy for Kilgore's argument. A lot of it stands on learning from the Clinton experience. He claims that the public 'firmly turned against' impeachment when it was clear that there would be no conviction. The fact is that there never was firm support for impeachment of Clinton in the first place, and for good reason. Apples and oranges.

What exactly is wrong with a political 'excercise' if it's warranted? There are many ways of handling impeachment - eg, drag it out. Dem pres. candidates can take their positions on it as information comes out of the inquiry. Vote to convict or aquit at the end of Bush's term if you must. It's not necessarily about removing them early. It certainly isn't a waste of time - unlike minueting and losing procedural votes in the Senate. Voters are mad as hell, and they want someone to do something about something.

People hate Bush and Cheney, but they also hate DC and its minions, especially including Democrats. One of the reasons for the latter is this kind of timorousness. They vote for Republicans because - odious though they might be - they aren't as chickenshit, politically, as the Dems. Republicans lead - off a cliff, perhaps, but they do *lead*. Dems wring their hands and try to game everything out.

The only argument against starting impeachment proceedings is that Congressional Dems will fuck it up. That actually is a valid fear.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 27, 2007 10:11 AM

Nitpick: it's "cravenness" with two Ns; the entire post reads like you're saying "crave-ness," which sounds like Democrats have weird food obsessions.

Posted by latts | July 27, 2007 10:20 AM

Just to be clear: Republicans pols 'game everything out', too, of course. The difference is that they will play the odds and push - ie take a chance, whereas Dems almost never do, no matter how slight.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 27, 2007 10:24 AM

The following interview with Bruce Fein on this subject may be of some interest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19976707/

Posted by SLC | July 27, 2007 10:35 AM

I think starting the ball rolling on impeachment is now the right thing to do, politically. It will make the media more excited about covering all the investigations into the Bush administration's wrongdoings. That excitement will definitely affect the tone of their coverage.

The downside is that it may unite the Republicans in Congress a bit, and may give them the spin that the Democrats are just trying to get back at them for impeaching Clinton.

On balance, though, it seems like there is enough evidence of wrongdoing out there to go for it.

Posted by Jim W | July 27, 2007 11:06 AM

It's not a matter of courage or the lack thereof. In fact, we should probably try to outgrow this tendency to assess politicians' decisions according to whether or not they display "courage." That tendency is most obviously pernicious with regard to the war supporters who brag about their unshakable resolve, but the general principle is similar for most major policy decisions. Given that the risks and consequences of most big political choices are going to be felt more strongly by the public than by the representatives who make them, it's better to assess those consequences themselves - as opposed to judging leaders on their toughness, or lack thereof.

On the subject of consequences... given that a conviction is unattainable for the time being, the only plausible end result of an impeachment process would appear to be Bush and Cheney being declared innocent of high crimes and misdemeanors for wrongdoing committed while in office. On the face of it, it's hard to see why the Dems should be expected to drop everything in pursuit of a process that will inevitably lead to a formal exoneration.

If the political environment changes to the point where a number of Republican senators might be inclined to vote for conviction (or might face serious electoral consequences for failing to do so), then the calculation changes. So, the Democrats should be doing everything they can to change that political environment.

Contrary to John Emerson, there's no complicated or shifty "meta-tactical" thinking required to arrive at that conclusion - to me, it seems like a pretty simple assessment of the likely consequences.

Posted by N | July 27, 2007 11:24 AM

for the time being, the only plausible end result of an impeachment process would appear to be Bush and Cheney being declared innocent of high crimes and misdemeanors for wrongdoing committed while in office.

Hold off the Senate vote (that's right, allow the GOP Senators no 'up or down vote').

The analogy between the Iraq war and Impeachment is facile. There is a difference between puffed up beligerence and the courage of one's convictions. Admit from the start that this is political theatre, but with purpose. If we're going to have a confrontation anyway - and it's unavoidable - why not drive the bus?

Posted by jonnybutter | July 27, 2007 11:32 AM

Maybe it's not the right time to start it in Congress, but it sure is the right time to start it in town meetings and state legislatures. Once it's on the agenda, Congress will not look like it's sticking its neck out so far.

Posted by Jim M | July 27, 2007 11:33 AM

Even if there's no realistic chance of a conviction by the Senate, I believe the conduct of this Administration has been so egregious, so damaging, that there ought to be a move to impeach one or more senior Administration officials simply to put on record the "sense of the House" (to borrow an English/Canadian term).

To think that Clinton was impeached but that Bush and his team would escape impeachment is just appalling to me. I'm not suggesting that the standard set by the Republicans when they impeached Clinton should be the standard going forward, but even an impeachment proceeding that fell short of conviction would serve a profoundly important purpose: it would place into the public record, as it were, a finding -- a declaration -- that this Administration really was this bad and that, as a generation of voters, we were willing to do something about it.

Posted by DNS | July 27, 2007 11:57 AM

the question of whether or not it makes sense for Democrats to embrace this idea amounts to a question of whether or not it makes sense as political positioning.

Matt is right here and I was an idiot above to call this 'contradictory' (I'm ridiculously busy today). This is indeed the question, and I obviously think the answer could be 'yes'.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 27, 2007 12:29 PM

I'd also note that there is a certain kind of 'MBA' thinking in some DC circles, which has reached its apotheosis in the Bush 'administration', viz 'When the other guy zigs, you zag'. In other words, never do the obvious thing (in Bush's case, he does precisely the *wrong* thing time after time just because nobody expects him to do something so stupid/wrong. It keeps people guessing and off balance). Sometimes the obvious thing is what's called for, however.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 27, 2007 12:37 PM

Yglesias's comments are wonderful for the way people step up to instantiate the stupidity of Democratic wiseguys. N, in this case.

First of all, he/she declares things to be inevitable which are not inevitable.

Second, he/she mentions the possibility that the political climate might change. But he/she ignores the fact that talking about impeachment is one way to change the climate.

Third, even though the perceived weenieness of Democrats is one of their biggest political deficiencies, he/she insists that we not think about toughness at all. Let's continue to be perceived as weenies! Let our leaders continue to show themselves as weenies to the the rank and file! Words to live by.

Fourth, he/she flattens the whole question to "Impeach now or not". What I was saying is that the Democratic leadership should not take impeachment off the table, and that there should be someone arguing for impeachment all the time. There's no bargaining chip if you promise not to impeach. (What I accused Democrats of was worse than strategic thinking. It was short-term immediate-success tactical thinking. That's what N offers her in his cocksure manner).

Last, the whole mess of stupidity is coolly packaged in condescending Pol Sci 101 terms. N is really very smart, folks. He's not a gut thinker like you. People like him are responsible for the Democratic Party's enormous recent successes. Pay attention to what he says!

(NOTE: "He/she" is PC, N sounds like a guy to me. No offense intended, ladies.)

Posted by John Emerson | July 27, 2007 1:00 PM

In a perfect world we would have statesmen in Congress who acted on principle. Currently, it is more about what benefits the party's chances the most in the next election. The assumed political calculus seems to be that seeking impeachment is a losing proposition unless you can get the 2/3 of the Senate needed to convict. If popular opinion is high enough in favor, it seems to me even trying and failing to sway enough Republicans would be a winning tactic. In fact, failing to pursue impeachment may actually cost Democrats some seats in 2008. The question is, how high does impeachment support have to get in the polls before the Democrats act? Also, I wonder what the polls would say about impeaching Gonzales.

Posted by GlenO | July 27, 2007 1:29 PM

Even if there's no realistic chance of a conviction by the Senate, I believe the conduct of this Administration has been so egregious, so damaging, that there ought to be a move to impeach one or more senior Administration officials....It would place into the public record, as it were, a finding -- a declaration -- that this Administration really was this bad and that, as a generation of voters, we were willing to do something about it.

I can't possibly associate myself with this comment too strongly. This is exactly the point of impeachment--to lay down a marker, to send a message to future administrations: This behavior is contrary to the foundational laws and ideals of the country, and if you try it, you're going to be in big trouble.

Obviously impeachment is "big trouble" whether or not it results in conviction. For that matter, it's big trouble if it's discussed in the House Judiciary Committee even if articles of impeachment are never voted out.

Perhaps an even better way to put it is to ask what message we'll be sending to future administrations if we don't impeach, or at the very least begin the formal process.

Posted by Swift Loris | July 27, 2007 2:49 PM

When did making decisions about what to do based on the foreseeable consequences become 'craven'? Sorry, Matt, but that's just an unforgiveable abuse of the language.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 27, 2007 2:52 PM

It's craven to assume the worst and never to take any chances. Someone who will only try for a sure thing can easily be bluffed. It's also stupid to make all decisions based on the short-term result.

As I said, stupid wiseguys is what got the Democrats in the hole they're in.

A further consideration is the risk involved in leaving Bush in office for another 18 months. He's already clearly shown that he's not going to show any restraint or even minimal respect for law and process.

Posted by John Emerson | July 27, 2007 3:49 PM

It's craven to assume the worst and never to take any chances. Someone who will only try for a sure thing can easily be bluffed. It's also stupid to make all decisions based on the short-term result.

And if any of those fatuous platitudes had anything at all to do with the situation at hand, then you would probably be right. Instead, you're using them to argue for a) one particular strategy among several, which is b) absolutely 100% guaranteed to fail.

A further consideration is the risk involved in leaving Bush in office for another 18 months. He's already clearly shown that he's not going to show any restraint or even minimal respect for law and process.

And if there were a non-zero probability that impeachment would actually remove Bush (and Cheney--removing Bush isn't enough, obviously) from office, then, once again, you would have a point.

Look: hope is not a plan. Fatuous platitudes aren't enough. You think it's possible to get 17 Republican senators on board? Fine; explain how, step-by-step, without using miracles or ellipses. If you can't do that, then impeachment is just a wish fulfillment fantasy--and I have no patience for those.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 27, 2007 7:14 PM

You're doing the same thing the other guy did: asserting inevitability of failure.

You are also asserting that an unsuccessful attempt to impeach will be worse than nothing. Not true. The Republicans crippled Clinton for months.

I wasn't saying that we should try to impeach tomorrow. I was saying that we should have had the issue on the table months ago and should have been keeping it on the table continually since, while actively publicizing the rationale for impeachment. Since we failed to do that (thanks, Nancy!), we should start now. I said this very clearly.

You call me fatuous? Idiot.

Keeping an option open doesn't require commitment to the option. Preparing public opinion for a course of action doesn't require commitment to the course of action. But every goddamn Pol Sci 101 moron in the Democratic party thinks that they can predict the game fifteen moves into the future, and they're ever so generous in sharing their wisdom with the rest of us.

Posted by John Emerson | July 27, 2007 9:24 PM