A Question to Democrats: If Not Now, When?
Last week Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. As expected, the corporate-controlled media paid little attention to this action, but it was noted in the blogosphere and generated a moderate amount of debate for a few days here at TPM. While some bloggers supported the impeachment of Bush, others opposed it for a number of mostly practical reasons.
In particular, some argued that the impeachment process would hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House and Congressional seats in November. They believe that Bush, Cheney, and the other Bush administration criminals can be dealt with after Obama is in office and the Democrats have a larger majority in Congress. Until then, this just isn’t the right time. But won’t there be other important things for Obama to do if he wins the election, especially in those all-important first 100 days? Wouldn’t the American public turn against a President who said he was about change and bipartisan relationships if he spent valuable resources dealing with the crimes of a former president and his administration rather than the economy, the war, and other vital issues?
My problem with the “not the right time” argument is that it has been used for too long to give our leaders of today a free pass while passing the buck on to our leaders of tomorrow. We are expected to have blind faith that the Democrats, once elected, will take on the important issues. But there is always an upcoming election. There are always public opinion concerns. There will always be a better time.
Unfortunately, such political procrastination has contributed greatly to many of the serious problems facing our nation, besides the Iraq War. In particular, the current energy crisis could have been avoided to some degree if the issue had been dealt with more seriously starting back in the ’70s and ‘80s. But action wasn’t taken and the problems of energy policy and global climate change, which are related, will now require courage and conviction from our leaders if they are to make the necessary, but possibly politically unpopular, decisions.
If we are expecting Obama and the Congressional Democrats to have the courage to take on the big issues confronting our society, we must let them know that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. It doesn’t seem like we are doing that, at least not in the case of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, each time we give our leaders a free pass, we make it all the harder for the next leaders to act in a responsible manner. Not only do the problems become compounded the longer we put them off but we create a precedent for inaction, making it harder to win over support from a society that has become accustomed to complacency and convenience.
Unfortunately, it isn’t going to get any easier. Big business has established a firm control over the mainstream media (due in large part to media consolidation that started under the Clinton administration) and it is able to control the message. In addition, many Republicans and Democrats in Congress act on behalf of corporate interests all too often. However, there are still a number of Democrats who, by and large, represent the people’s interests. Given this dynamic, it is vital that we support those progressive Democrats who still fight the good fight.
So why, instead, do some Democratic bloggers ridicule one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress, Dennis Kucinich? There were 22 co-sponsors of his 2007 resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney and there are currently 3 co-sponsors of the Bush impeachment resolution. Clearly, Kucinich has support from his progressive colleagues in the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, we see bloggers proposing an ultraconservative Republican such as Chuck Hagel as a possible vice presidential candidate just because he is against the Iraq War. While his current opposition may be admirable, it is worth remembering that Hagel supported the Iraq War resolution in 2002 while Kucinich opposed it (along with 125 Democratic Representatives and 21 Democratic Senators).
But that was 2002 and now, in 2008, some bloggers have implied that those who support impeachment are playing into the hands of the Republicans. But this sounds all too similar to the Bush administration’s accusations that those who opposed the Iraq War were playing into the hands of the terrorists. Aren’t we tired of having pessimistic predictions and generalized fear used as a way to get us go along, to keep us trusting in those who supposedly know better? I think FDR had a point when he said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”.
In fact, the greatness of this country lies in the courage of individuals throughout history who have stood up to the powerful when the stakes were the highest. Our country has been made great by the members of the early labor movement who fought to bring about the humane working conditions that we all take for granted today (although not for long). Our country has been made great by the men and women who defied Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, many of whom lost their jobs and livelihoods after being blacklisted. Our country has been made great by individuals such as Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and Mike Gravel, who had the tenacity to introduce them into the Congressional record. And by the honorable Vietnam veterans and Iraq veterans who have spoken out against unjust wars after experiencing the horrors firsthand. And by the courageous whistleblowers who risk their own careers and lives to expose government and corporate crime. And by the career diplomats who resigned in protest of the illegal invasion of Iraq. What if these people had said that it isn’t the right time, I don’t want to pay the personal price, let someone else do it? It is a sad commentary that our society has all too often relied on the selfless acts of public and private citizens while our elected officials stand by with their fingers to the political wind.
Indeed, while Democrats have continued to play it safe until the “next election”, George Bush has set a precedent of expanded executive power along with a total disregard for the authority of Congress. Congress has set the precedent of letting him get away with it, which does not seem to sit well with the public given its horrible approval ratings (below 20%). For too long, Democrats have behaved like codependents in an abusive relationship. They blame Bush and the Republicans for their woes but seem to be afraid to stand up to them. It is easy for us all to blame the Republicans for our country’s problems, but where were the Democrats? Why haven’t they stood unified in opposition as the Constitution has been shredded and the American people have been betrayed at the behest of corporate profiteers? And when the Democrats finally won control of Congress, why did Nancy Pelosi give Bush a free pass and take impeachment off the table?
Unfortunately, she did. But it is worth considering that there are still 7 months until Bush is out of office. Many seem to treat Bush in the past tense, as though he is no longer a threat and can be dealt with after the election. But prisoners are still being tortured and Blackwater forces are still operating above the law and Americans troops and Iraqis are still dying. We must also take seriously the persistent rhetoric about a possible attack against Iran. What if Bush uses claims of a nuclear weapons program and unstable leaders and ties to terrorists to justify such action to the American people? This is not an altogether unlikely scenario, in which case impeachment would no longer seem pointless.
Many of those arguing against impeachment also seem to assume that Obama will win the election, and this is a key factor in their logic. But, hypothetically, what if McCain were ahead in the polls by, say, 10% or more? There is still plenty of time before November for unexpected developments, especially if the above scenario involving Iran were to play out. How would Democrats feel if Bush’s “third term” was staring them in the face? Would more people support impeachment in order to establish the criminality of the Bush policies and the abuses of the Constitution so as to not let them become accepted executive privilege? Herein lies the problem. The decision to impeach a president should not be influenced by who is ahead in the polls or who is running for office or whether it is the “right time”. Impeachment should be about crimes committed against the Constitution. It should be about defending our country.
In particular, some argued that the impeachment process would hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House and Congressional seats in November. They believe that Bush, Cheney, and the other Bush administration criminals can be dealt with after Obama is in office and the Democrats have a larger majority in Congress. Until then, this just isn’t the right time. But won’t there be other important things for Obama to do if he wins the election, especially in those all-important first 100 days? Wouldn’t the American public turn against a President who said he was about change and bipartisan relationships if he spent valuable resources dealing with the crimes of a former president and his administration rather than the economy, the war, and other vital issues?
My problem with the “not the right time” argument is that it has been used for too long to give our leaders of today a free pass while passing the buck on to our leaders of tomorrow. We are expected to have blind faith that the Democrats, once elected, will take on the important issues. But there is always an upcoming election. There are always public opinion concerns. There will always be a better time.
Unfortunately, such political procrastination has contributed greatly to many of the serious problems facing our nation, besides the Iraq War. In particular, the current energy crisis could have been avoided to some degree if the issue had been dealt with more seriously starting back in the ’70s and ‘80s. But action wasn’t taken and the problems of energy policy and global climate change, which are related, will now require courage and conviction from our leaders if they are to make the necessary, but possibly politically unpopular, decisions.
If we are expecting Obama and the Congressional Democrats to have the courage to take on the big issues confronting our society, we must let them know that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. It doesn’t seem like we are doing that, at least not in the case of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, each time we give our leaders a free pass, we make it all the harder for the next leaders to act in a responsible manner. Not only do the problems become compounded the longer we put them off but we create a precedent for inaction, making it harder to win over support from a society that has become accustomed to complacency and convenience.
Unfortunately, it isn’t going to get any easier. Big business has established a firm control over the mainstream media (due in large part to media consolidation that started under the Clinton administration) and it is able to control the message. In addition, many Republicans and Democrats in Congress act on behalf of corporate interests all too often. However, there are still a number of Democrats who, by and large, represent the people’s interests. Given this dynamic, it is vital that we support those progressive Democrats who still fight the good fight.
So why, instead, do some Democratic bloggers ridicule one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress, Dennis Kucinich? There were 22 co-sponsors of his 2007 resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney and there are currently 3 co-sponsors of the Bush impeachment resolution. Clearly, Kucinich has support from his progressive colleagues in the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, we see bloggers proposing an ultraconservative Republican such as Chuck Hagel as a possible vice presidential candidate just because he is against the Iraq War. While his current opposition may be admirable, it is worth remembering that Hagel supported the Iraq War resolution in 2002 while Kucinich opposed it (along with 125 Democratic Representatives and 21 Democratic Senators).
But that was 2002 and now, in 2008, some bloggers have implied that those who support impeachment are playing into the hands of the Republicans. But this sounds all too similar to the Bush administration’s accusations that those who opposed the Iraq War were playing into the hands of the terrorists. Aren’t we tired of having pessimistic predictions and generalized fear used as a way to get us go along, to keep us trusting in those who supposedly know better? I think FDR had a point when he said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”.
In fact, the greatness of this country lies in the courage of individuals throughout history who have stood up to the powerful when the stakes were the highest. Our country has been made great by the members of the early labor movement who fought to bring about the humane working conditions that we all take for granted today (although not for long). Our country has been made great by the men and women who defied Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, many of whom lost their jobs and livelihoods after being blacklisted. Our country has been made great by individuals such as Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and Mike Gravel, who had the tenacity to introduce them into the Congressional record. And by the honorable Vietnam veterans and Iraq veterans who have spoken out against unjust wars after experiencing the horrors firsthand. And by the courageous whistleblowers who risk their own careers and lives to expose government and corporate crime. And by the career diplomats who resigned in protest of the illegal invasion of Iraq. What if these people had said that it isn’t the right time, I don’t want to pay the personal price, let someone else do it? It is a sad commentary that our society has all too often relied on the selfless acts of public and private citizens while our elected officials stand by with their fingers to the political wind.
Indeed, while Democrats have continued to play it safe until the “next election”, George Bush has set a precedent of expanded executive power along with a total disregard for the authority of Congress. Congress has set the precedent of letting him get away with it, which does not seem to sit well with the public given its horrible approval ratings (below 20%). For too long, Democrats have behaved like codependents in an abusive relationship. They blame Bush and the Republicans for their woes but seem to be afraid to stand up to them. It is easy for us all to blame the Republicans for our country’s problems, but where were the Democrats? Why haven’t they stood unified in opposition as the Constitution has been shredded and the American people have been betrayed at the behest of corporate profiteers? And when the Democrats finally won control of Congress, why did Nancy Pelosi give Bush a free pass and take impeachment off the table?
Unfortunately, she did. But it is worth considering that there are still 7 months until Bush is out of office. Many seem to treat Bush in the past tense, as though he is no longer a threat and can be dealt with after the election. But prisoners are still being tortured and Blackwater forces are still operating above the law and Americans troops and Iraqis are still dying. We must also take seriously the persistent rhetoric about a possible attack against Iran. What if Bush uses claims of a nuclear weapons program and unstable leaders and ties to terrorists to justify such action to the American people? This is not an altogether unlikely scenario, in which case impeachment would no longer seem pointless.
Many of those arguing against impeachment also seem to assume that Obama will win the election, and this is a key factor in their logic. But, hypothetically, what if McCain were ahead in the polls by, say, 10% or more? There is still plenty of time before November for unexpected developments, especially if the above scenario involving Iran were to play out. How would Democrats feel if Bush’s “third term” was staring them in the face? Would more people support impeachment in order to establish the criminality of the Bush policies and the abuses of the Constitution so as to not let them become accepted executive privilege? Herein lies the problem. The decision to impeach a president should not be influenced by who is ahead in the polls or who is running for office or whether it is the “right time”. Impeachment should be about crimes committed against the Constitution. It should be about defending our country.
