Lewis Lapham-On Impeachment-Constitution Doesn't Serve At The Pleasure Of Pelosi Or The Whim Of Bush

[kpete]

Lewis Lapham on impeachment
by ybruti
Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 07:22:17 AM PST

In the January 2007 Harper’s, former editor Lewis Lapham takes aim at Nancy Pelosi’s "impeachment is off the table."

In Lapham’s view, impeaching Bush will be a form of public education, a civic lesson that might "unearth American democracy."

Democracy is born in dirt, nourished by the digging up and turning over of as much of it as can be brought within reach of a television camera or a subpoena. We can’t "lay out a new agenda for America" unless we know which America we’re talking about, the one that embodies the freedoms of a sovereign people or the one made to fit the requirements of a totalitarian state....

Like it or not, and no matter how unpleasant or impolitic the proceedings, the spirit of the law doesn’t allow the luxury of fastidious silence or discreet abstention....

The Constitution doesn’t serve at the pleasure of Representative Pelosi any more than it answers to the whim of President Bush, and by taking "off the table" the mess of an impeachment proceeding, the lady from California joins the president in his distaste for such an unclean thing as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

..........

How much longer do we wish to pretend that nothing really happened, or that nothing really valuable is lost; that the crime is the losing of the Iraq war, not the making of it? That in place of the constitutional questions asking why, to what end, and whose interest, we can afford to substitute the questions of logistics – how many troops to dispatch or withdraw over a period of how many days or months...
what deals to cut with Syria and Iran.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/17/11928/503

[rodeodance]

1. I am going to send to Pelosi's office.-----and my Senators!

[rodeodance]

2. and my Reps.

[bobbolink]

3. You mean, the Constitution is important????

I thought the first and foremost consideration was "the good of the party".

[TahitiNut]

18. You'd think so, listening to some, wouldn't you?

It sure separates the "consequentialists" from the "deontologists" though. I never had much respect for utilitarian ethics, myself. I think values and principles should mean something - not just when convenient. Go figure.

A while back H20Man and I (and some others) had a very good interchange here on DU on the Constitutional duty to impeach ... and we agreed almost verbatim with what Lapham has now written.

Lewis Lapham is a 'hero' of mine. Steadfastly principled and liberal - and one of the best essayists in America today.

[grasswire]

23. too true...

...nobody can sink the shiv and twist it as elegantly as Lapham. I believe he's a national treasure.

[bobbolink]

32. So, the Dems once again become the party of "soft on crime"

People who would be enraged at the thought of the thief who broke into their home going free, think it's just fine to let this organized crime syndicate go free.

This is one time the Dems need to be "Law And Order"!

More on the Lapham article:

http://www.harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

[omega minimo]

4. Yup. That's the problem with strategery-- it depends on "pretending"

LL :yourock:

KP :applause:

[Drum]

5. Impeachment doesn't have only one effect or purpose

and I agree with this post. Far from being just a partisan branding, impeachment would shine a light on wrongdoing for the citizens of the country to see...we, the voters, the owners of America.

Sunlight makes the best disinfectant, they say, and I think that investigations and an impeachment in THIS case is only appropriate and respectful of the hard-won governmental structure that we've inherited from our forefathers. The checks and balances and tools of real democracy are right there in the carefully crafted rulebook, and it is each generation's responnsibility to apply those rules.

It would be the right thing to do to focus our nation's attention back on accountability in our governance, to remind all citizens of the responsibility of thinking about these issues for it keeps citizens involved and keeps politicians honest. If there are no consequences for actions, what prevents the hastening of our collective downward slide?

[elocs]

7. In the Nixon era the Democrats did not simply pass articles of impeachment

and then begin the Watergate hearings. No, the Watergate hearings came first and it was over a year later before the Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment. You investigate first because that is the proper way to proceed and it will take over a year easily. With only 2 years left it is likely that the clock may run out and then there will be exploding heads when there is no impeachment. But take heart because if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, then there will be nobody to pardon Bushco and perhaps if it has been proven he has committed criminal acts, then he could be tried as a private citizen.

[Nite Owl]

8. That's the way I see it too.

They have to be thouroughly investigated first and the clock will run out but the time it comes to elections the Republican party not just the administration will be the dirt allowing a dem to get into office. I just hope that no pardons are given 'for the good of the country', 'to give a fresh start' or whatever they might want to call it. They need to be prosecuted fully and this could go on for years which politically might be good for the dems as it will be in the news for that time too bringing it up constantly as to who put us in this mess. The people need to know the whole story and put conservatism down forever once their hypocrisy is revealed.

[omega minimo]

10. It's unrealistic to assume how long the process will take, esp. given the existing admissions

(FISA violations for example) and documentation, etc., etc. that already exists and has been ongoing for -- how many years?

It also seems unrealisistic to think that, when there is "nobody to pardon Bushco," W would ever be tried as a private citizen. If Democrats let this slide, the clock will run out on the American experiment.

[elocs]

15. It's unrealistic to believe that Bush will be impeached and convicted.

Time to pull the head out of the clouds and re-engage with reality. Impeachment does not happen to often, but Clinton was also impeached as a result of an ongoing investigation and it took a year.
The truth is that the clock will run out, but our democratic republic will go on. This is not the Old West where a person is tried and convicted on the same day. Many criminal trials and investigations take more that 2 years and this one is very complex. The American experiment certainly does not need a rush to judgment. Bush will finish his term and life will go on despite all of the hyperbole to the contrary.

[omega minimo]

17. Complete and total, false nonsense.

[elocs]

19. Says you, although there are more than a few people who disagree with you.

Wow! You sure told me. A little over the top perhaps with the hyperbole. Such a wordy and worthy refutation of my post. I yield to your superior intellect and grasp of reality, although how is it in Oz because you certainly are not in Kansas?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

25. An important statement.

"If Democrats let this slide, the clock will run out on the American experiment."

[EST]

6. Although my sympathies certainly lie with impeachment,

said impeachment only applies to removal from office and denial of any future involvement in public office.
If this were 2003, impeachment would make perfect sense-and did, then. Now, however, the upcoming investigations should result in prison sentences and, if public demand is great enough, impeachment of the responsible office holders and their assistants, advisers and enablers, even after they've left office.

Impeachment is a political solution, not a legal one. It is a reversal of the election that put the offenders into office.

I think, as much as I am offended by the notion of impeachment being "off the table," Pelosi is making a hard-headed political conclusion, one that will be recognized, in the long run, as far more effective than
burning up time and effort at something that, without super majorities in both houses, would prove likely prove fruitless.

[cascadiance]

9. Impeachment may be a part, but not the focus of what should happen next few years!

The focus is making sure that those who've been committing crimes are punished appropriately, and taken OUT of any possible involvement in the political system in the future! If that's done through impeachment, so be it! If that's done through something like a constitutional ammendment preventing/limiting pardons of these people to avoid their "recyclement" back into our system in the future, so be it!

But the focal point should be keeping them accountable and making sure that this sort of activity doesn't happen again in the future! Not just shift the power to the Dems, which may or may not happen as a part of this, or might HAVE to happen in order to implement this too.

What should have been learned from Watergate, Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, etc. in the past is not so much how far we can go with actual impeachment, but the cost we've born by allowing people to continue to function in our political system without punishment for past offenses that they've committed. Things like pardons, etc. that were used trying to have a "civil" outcome to things like Watergate and Iran Contra will NOT be enough to make sure that there's a visible warning to others who might want to do the same thing that there's going to be a heavy price to be paid by THEM (not us) if they try doing this sort of thing in the future ever again. We need real punishment to be visited on these people!

Hey we're the land of heavy punishment (capital punishment and the largest prison population on the planet per capita) visited on the lowest rung of our society. Why don't we visit this harsh punishment on those that try to have control over it too when they commit crimes as well? Until we do, they will think that they are the only ones in this country with power and privilege, which is why we have a growing wealth and power gap now. They treat us like sheep and this has to STOP!

[EST]

13. Agree n/t

[tomp]

20. ah, but there's the education of the people that goes with it.

what will it take that this should not happen again?

obviously, the resignation of nixon was not enough to prevent even worse than watergate happening. he should have been tried, for war crimes if for nothing else. to the everlasting shame of gerald ford, he did not allow that to happen.

if pelosi and conyers wish to go down in history as gerald ford has, let them. it will not change what is the obvious right thing for patriots to do at this time.

[EST]

24. The pardon of Nixon should have taught us something

but it did not. Raygun and Bush 1 should have been impeached and imprisoned for their high crimes in 1987 but they were not-"for the good of the country."
Bill Clinton forgave, in our name, those self same conspirators when he took office, hoping to foster better treatment from the criminal thug party and we all know how wonderfully that turned out!

If the democratic party biggies let this horrid criminal cabal off the hook this time, we will know, despite the rhetoric, that they are in league with the crooks. At that point, I would gladly support the prosecution and imprisonment of those democratic operatives who condone such a scheme as co-conspirators.

[kentuck]

11. I've always admired Lapham...

One of the few people that can talk as well as they write.

[On the Road]

34. You've Heard Him Talk?

What's he like? I've followed Harper's for over 20 years.

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Here's what Conyers had to say about it -- and it convinced me

at least temporarily. (Can't find the link. Darn.) Anyway, he said basically they don't have the votes for impeachment and until/unless they do, it'll just be a distraction and politically unfeasable. Plus, the Repugs can say - "Well, the reason we didn't get anything done was that the Dems spent all that time on those futile, vengeful impeachment efforts."

Made sense to me coming from him. I do think there'll likely be enough political pressure if investigations are held properly that the Repugs COULD turn and be willing to vote for impeachment, but the investigations have to come first.

[elocs]

16. What Conyers says does make sense, but too many cannot deal with that.

They seem to be totally obsessed with impeachment and are blinded to reality and to any potential consequences of impeachment. I wonder how they will go on living if it does not happen? Will their heads explode? Will they move to Canada? Form the Impeachment Party?

[cascadiance]

21. I don't think that we should look at impeachment as a "liability" at ALL...

But we SHOULD look at it pragmatically and know when it will yield results and when it won't. We NEED investigations now. We might just find that set of "watergate tapes" soon that will make it a viable option to do now. And some have said that we already have those big evidence pieces. Well, even if we do, they have to be more formally and publicly vetted and cross examined for all to see, so that people don't just feel it as a bunch of "leftist malarky". You and I know that it isn't, but we need to convince the rest of America that.

One thing I'm wondering about too is if there is some legislation that the Dems want to get through soon, but are afraid of Bush vetoing it and not having enough votes to override his veto. If that very key legislation is hung in front of Bush and he's then told, "You either sign this and continue to cooperate with other legislation we have moving through congress, or we WILL go through with impeachment shortly and you and Cheney's asses are going to be grass!". Perhaps they want that leverage for a bit. And by all means, increased investigations that would yield bigger smoking guns would INCREASE their ability to put pressure on Bushco, and therefore INCREASE their ability to get things through congress that they (and hopefully we in the process) want.

Of course once Bush backs off, then they can stop playing nice as a means of dealing with the Republicans. At that point they need to have the appropriate evidence to compel the American people to demand impeachment, and then they can go through with it.

[Independent_Liberal]

33. I agree with everything you say cali.

You're a very down-to-earth person.

[Senator]

28. If you "wait for the votes" to stand up and act against war crimes...

... you become a war criminal yourself. Sorry, but that's how it works.

The rest is just rationalization.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

Only Impeachment...

--

[Morgana LaFey]

29. I don't think you were paying attention

I should probably go back and read my own post, but without doing so I still distinctly remember mentioning that they would be having investigations and that the fallout from those very well could get the Republican votes that would be required because of public pressure.

[kpete]

30. Truth is all that matters

without truth - we cannot "see" - we stand for NOTHING - we become NOTHING...

[Fovea]

14. you wouldn't think someone called realpolitik

would have a problem with the Pelosi off the table rhetoric.
But this is not simply about inter party warfare, cold or hot.

This is about restoring America's reputation vis a vis the rule of law
and teh international community. We are going to need a butt load of good will
and forbarence to get through the post Dubya years. The process of impeachment
would go a long way in that direction, IMO.

Take a little damage, maybe, and that is not certain in the short term, get
back to more normal relations with our allies, former, and present.

[Jcrowley]

22. K & R n/t

[4dsc]

26. Hold steady boys, let's investigate first

Let's not put the horse before the cart with talk about impeachment.. Let's first take care of business all the while having investigations into the wrongdoings of this corrupt administration..

Then we can impeach the bastards!!

[mod mom]

27. I love Lewis Lapham and enjoy Harpers. K & R

[bobthedrummer]

31. Who else is fed-up with the "decisions" about what is served at the people's

table?

Wasn't our "order" plain enough to understand when we placed it November 7th???