Impeachment: Futile or merely impossible?

[man4allcats]

Maybe it's just me, but since Congress caved to King Piss Pot on spying I have sensed a certain futility that didn't seem to exist prior to that occurrence. I notice it most with regard to the impeachment initiative. It just seems to me that less is being said about it now. I am pleased to say that DU still has some very strong and undaunted posters on this topic (Thanks, folks! You know who you are.), and though, thanks to the MSN, it was never a big topic on "the internets" generally, it now seems the impeachment outcry is more muted. A sense of resignation appears to have taken hold.

In a recent article, Ben Tripp proposes that this futility is in fact part of the grand plan of modern repressive regimes with particular emphasis on America under the Bush dictatorship. Tripp's thesis hinges on a carefully nuanced, but I think accurate, difference between the impossible and the futile. The impossible, he states, is that which cannot be accomplished given an existing set of conditions but might be possible if the conditions were changed. Those who attempt such challenges and eventually succeed through perseverance, hard work and raw courage become heroic figures. The futile, on the other hand, is that which never had a chance of succeeding in the first place. One can't, for example, put two gallons of milk in a one gallon container, and anyone attempting to do so will suffer the humiliation of being branded a fool on a fool's errand. In modern day government mind control of the populace, futility works because it plays on people's fear of humiliation. In short, dreaming the impossible dream is heroic; the pursuit of futility is merely moronic. Tripp concludes with this statement:

The more impossible something is, the more worthwhile it seems. At least there's no disgrace if it doesn't quite pan out the way you intended. Come to think of it, that's probably the main appeal these days of demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush: when the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, it was futile. Now that the Democrats are in charge, it's impossible.

Tripp's entire article is here. An excerpt follows:

What I'm driving at here is that Americans are drowning in a sense of futility right now. They are humiliated. George W. Bush (just for example) crapped on their heads, so they elected Nancy Pelosi to lead the charge against him, and Pelosi kicked them in the testicles. Humiliating. Many folks, having read my occasional screeds documenting the death rattles of mankind, comment that rather than whining, we ought to be DOING something about the issues (by "we" they mean "me", of course; they're already making a difference with street theater featuring Uncle Sam mimes with papier-mâché tanks and wheelbarrows stuffed with fake dollar bills). May the religious entity of their choice bless them, may they never get that horrible ant-like feeling of futility, but lordy lord do I ever get it myself. It doesn't mean I'm living in a dictatorship. Maybe I just have a low tolerance for being ignored by all-powerful megalomaniacs pissing my tax dollars away to expand the reach of their personal corporate empires. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to a bunch of subnormal bureaucrats deciding how much freedom is too much for my own good. Probably I am. But once that old feeling of futility sneaks up on me, it sure takes hold.

If it was impossible to oppose a fellow like George W. Bush (just for example) because he would send brownshirts to your house to cut off your ears and put food on your family, it would be a whole lot more fun. We could have secret meetings and run little hand-cranked printing presses day and night, distributing leaflets concealed inside baskets of luncheon rolls. Eventually someone would figure out a way to electrify his bunny slippers, and the next thing you know Biff Zapata is walking into the White House and it's a whole new day. Many a dictator has succumbed to the impossible in this manner. But it's not impossible to oppose Bush, only futile. I have been opposing him since he first started governing the country, way back in 2002. What has been the yield of my efforts? What have the steadfast and urgent efforts of all my fellow-travelers opposing this erstwhile tyrant amounted to? Hint: it's a quantity in the mid- to low- zilch region, relative to the damage he has meanwhile done on the slightest caprice.

So two questions hang in the air, like goiters: first, are we living in a dictatorship? I know you saw through my cunning rhetorical subterfuges above and know that this is what I was driving at the whole time. And you probably know that my answer is "yes", but that it's a dictatorship empowered by futility rather than violence (the violence being restricted to people we've recently attacked, such as Afghanis, Iraqis, or black Southerners, plus a handful of suspects whisked away for torture, just to remind everybody else there are worse sensations than a feeling of futility). That said, the second question arises from the first: if this is a dictatorship, even of the subtlest kind, what does one do about it? It's humiliating to go around being outwitted at every turn by a president so incompetent he couldn't light a match if you held the blowtorch. I think the answer lies in the nature of the impossible.

We should probably be attempting impossible things. Our current incremental approach amounts to pitching pebbles in the tide. World events play up the sense of futility: are we really going to diddle around demanding improved fuel economy when the seas are already going to rise five meters? How high is that in feet, anyway? If we're at Peak Oil already, is it really worthwhile attempting to stop these rotten oilmen fighting it out in faraway deserts? Can't we just wait until the oil runs out? If the educational system is so broken it will take decades to fix, shouldn't we just bustle our kids into private schools now, rather than hope they graduate from high school when they're thirty? It all seems dreadfully futile, put in that kind of context. But let's talk about the impossible: cars that run five trillion billion miles on a thimbleful of mint sauce! A protective snow globe built over the entire North Pole with "Merry Xmas" engraved on the genuine burl walnut base! A proportionally representative government with mandatory voting for all adults, universal healthcare, and a lifetime supply of Circus Peanuts for every citizen! The more impossible something is, the more worthwhile it seems. At least there's no disgrace if it doesn't quite pan out the way you intended. Come to think of it, that's probably the main appeal these days of demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush: when the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, it was futile. Now that the Democrats are in charge, it's impossible.

[alfredo]

1. Impeachment is too little. They are war criminals and should be

treated as the criminals they are. Impeachment just fires them from their jobs. It doesn't mean shit to these upper class twits. Putting them in cages is the only thing that will get their attention.

[Lint Head]

3. Right on! These pricks should be in jail. There has to be someone

with the balls to have these criminals arrested. They have looted the country, lied us into war and a taken away Constitutional rights. The people should demand justice now. The first step is to end this fallacy of corporate rights. :dem:

[alfredo]

6. If impeached they will go to work for some robber baron. Put them

in prison here or in the Hague.

[man4allcats]

4. You'll get no argument from me.

I'd love to see the whole bunch at The Hague facing a rope for war crimes.

[alfredo]

7. That is the only remedy that fits their crimes.

[Cleita]

2. I have to agree with you. The latest Congressional cave in

was the straw for me that makes me totally uninterested in the process anymore as nothing seems to stop BushCo from continuing with their criminal ways. I don't even have much hope anymore for justice being brought to this mob.

[porphyrian]

5. Neither. It is the Constitutionally prescribed method of dealing with this administration.

It would not preclude other actions from being taken against them. In fact, the ensuing investigations would probably lead to other actions, investigations and convictions. Most importantly, however, is the fact that by NOT impeaching, Congress becomes complicit in the crimes of this administration and ignores its duty to protect and uphold the Constitution, a document this administration openly defies and holds in disdain.

[Fovea]

8. As for your question

we are in a 'decidership'. That's a whole lots betterer, double plus good, as Karl would say!

We are either heading toward impeachment or insurrection, the more unlikely the former, the more likely the latter.
To me the issue is beyond possibility, or futility. It is which fork in the road are we going to hurtle down.
We are on a conveyance without brakes, and that is only marginally steerable.

So if we don't start tugging one way or the other, we will go off into the wild blue yonder without a parachute.
There is no law of physics that says America will come out of this as one nation.

[mmonk]

9. I guess impossible.

We would have to have all House democrats be against letting their crimes go unchallenged in any real manner. Unfortunately, the dark side has support on our side. I still can't get the knife out of my back.



Congressional Democrats