General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOur House
What do you have when a wise man argues with a fool? Two fools!
Rubin Hurricane Carter; letter to H2O Man; 1974
Fairly frequently, I see an OP/thread on DU:GD about a community member spanking a Trump fan in a debate. I always take pleasure in reading these. There are a significant percentage of Trump supporters, primarily republicans but some independents as well, that not only ask for but actually beg for our nailing them in a manner that provides entertainment.
I read an OP/thread today, posted by a long-time good friend, about responding to aggressively ignorant Trumpets. I believe it is up to the individual to determine, based upon context, is that individual. That context includes both how the individual is feeling at the moment, and the setting of the particular incident.
Debating, and even arguing, can be fun. I grew up poor, in a family that viewed debating and arguing to be a fine art. In particular, this included arguing with our father about politics and social issues, and debating my older brothers about boxing. Being the youngest and smallest, I learned to anticipate the exact moment to stop when someone became furious, as I have never enjoyed being punched.
These days, I do have some interaction on Facebook with some old high school friends and one very distant relative who like Trump. They are furious about the impeachment process, and ready to insult anyone who thinks differently. Growing up with absolutely no social graces, I always view these as an invitation to join in on their conversations.
My angry friends like me, so they tolerate my contributions. One is a prison guard, who doesn't so much like Trump as he hates the Democrats in office. Every day, it seems, he posts some bizarre meme on FB. I take one to two paragraphs to explain why it is someone purposefully lying to him. I ask him if he has seen the conspiracy theory of the day reported anywhere else? Even Fox? Then I ask if he likes being lied to?
With others, I suggest that we discuss impeachment not as Democrats or republicans, but as Americans who respect the Constitution. That this will allow for discussion, rather than debate or argument, because as long as we are discussing the Constitution and its history, it can be a learning opportunity for each and every one of us.
Now, perhaps as a result of leading a boring life, since 1973 turned into 1974, I have found the topic of impeachment fascinating. And there are rational differences of opinion on a range of things contained in this document. And that is the perfect reason for studying how the section on impeachment came into being.
Most of these gentlemen have not looked at the Constitution since we were in junior high social studies class. They can paraphrase Amendment 2, but nothing else. They may still believe in the mythology we were taught in our youth, about all of the Founding Fathers being super-humans. And certainly, a few were extraordinary people, and as a group, created a great document. Yet it was a group of men committing treason against the English, discussing, debating, and arguing about ways to form a more perfect union.
Why, I ask these fellows, did they pick the House of Representatives to have the sole power of impeachment? How did this relate to the earlier Articles of Confederation? What other options were considered first? What is the connection between their choice of the House and the electoral college?
It may surprise you perhaps even shock you, so I hope you are sitting down that only one of the guys has correctly answered one of those question. And he is a republican who thinks that Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses, and needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. More, he is the only one of the guys who thinks that my proposal that we meet as a group to discuss these issues as Americans concerned about the threats to the Constitution is a good idea.
The idea of impeachment is obviously rooted in the concept that no one is above the law. The majority of the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of an American political leader who was equal to a king, after all. Within the proposed republic, the House would be the only office selected democratically (popular vote for the Senate came much later). Thus, the House served as the voice of the people.
Other nations and even states had taken the route of allowing their judiciary to be involved in removing an elected official. Yet the federal judges in the US were to be appointed, not elected. Hence, there could be conflicts of interest (consider Nixon), and it would not represent the will of the people.
But, you might say, neither does the electoral college. True, that. The electoral college, as we know, was a compromise to convince smaller states to join the union. What is too often forgotten is that among the leaders thinkers of the Constitutional Convention, there was the expectation that few if any presidential elections would be decided by the electoral vote. There wasn't the technology we enjoy today that allows for instant communications, nor were there but two major parties. Indeed, the electoral college was initially set up to avoid its determining the outcome; instead, undecided elections would be decided by the House the voice of the people.
In other words, they believed they were giving the House the power to elect and to impeach the president. Now, this doesn't even begin to explain how it was that they picked the Senate to hear the trial, including having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court be at the head of the trial. Generally speaking, by now most of my high school friends who have morphed into Trumpets recognize that they are not able to debate or argue with me on these topics. But I'm happy to discuss these fascinating topics with them. Indeed, it is only through such discussions that they might begin to change their minds.
I think our nation requires such discussions. The House and Senate can debate the issues involving Trump and Fiends. But there is no benefit to a hostile, non-factually-based, national argument.
Peace,
H2O Man
Me.
(35,454 posts)H2O Man
(73,637 posts)malthaussen
(17,217 posts)... but his conduct was so impeccable, that even the GOP couldn't gin up a reason to try him.
Mr Trump's conduct has been impeachable since he took the Oath of Office.
But, given the heightened partisanship of these times, which are a phenomenon not just in the US, but seemingly everywhere on the planet, one wonders if any future President can escape being impeached, if the House is hostile and his conduct not squeaky-clean. This would probably be very bad for American democracy, which is already on the ropes as it is.
-- Mal
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)Great points -- no surprise, coming from you -- and exactly the stuff of good conversations! I'll start by agreeing 100% per President Obama. I, too, expected the rabid republicans to push for, and likely get, a vote for impeaching him. But exactly as you note, President Obama walked a path that was cleaner than any other president of my lifetime, and I'd bet in our history. (Note: JFK is my favorite president of my lifetime, but I have no problem recognizing how impeccable Obama was.)
Now, some presidential historians have believed that impeachment was intended to be used more frequently. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., for example, believed it was necessary to stop the expansion of presidential power-grabs by way of military conflicts. And his 1973 book "The Imperial Presidency" documented how the majority of presidents had indeed grabbed more power than the Constitution intended in just this way.
Yet at the Constitutional Convention, we see that the Founding Fathers were concerned that the power to impeach was as open to abuse as any other. And while the House has only impeached two previous presidents, and was heading towards impeaching Nixon, we know that over the decades, numerous House members have introduced th idea of impeaching the sitting president, almost always for entirely political reasons. It's a long and troubling list, for sure.
In today's political climate, there are the same risks as giving a six-year old a loaded gun to play with.
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)... with which the Founders were well-acquainted, it would be hard to see impeachment as anything other than open to abuse. I think once the Commons wrested control of Parliament, impeachment in a way took the place of attainder in wreaking vengeance on political opponents. English history up to that time is peppered with incidents of attainder, reversals of attainder, and re-attainder depending on who is King at the time. Then Commons got control, and immediately started impeaching the King's ministers as virtually a reflex action. Impeachment carried a death penalty, too -- about which, the less said the better.
Today's circumstances, I think, must be very close to what Hamilton et cie would have considered a "worst-case" scenario. Congress and the President should be natural rivals, but here we have half the former as willing lapdogs of the latter (or vice-versa; in practical terms, it all comes out in the wash). And a Judiciary that is at least partially corrupt as well. It verges on the point, I think, where they'd say "fuck it" and opt for the Lockean solution.
-- Mal
malaise
(269,219 posts)I love your posts for you and Hurricane
45 years of studying impeachment finally pays off!!!! (grin)
malaise
(269,219 posts)and good people - aka ''the deep state''
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)of John Lennon in 1968:
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
Are you watching Adam Schiff live?
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)in a minute. I got home from the store, and both dogs are insisting upon my immediate and undivided attention. Reminds me of when the boys were little!
coeur_de_lion
(3,686 posts)I vacillate between losing my temper and ignoring fools. Depends on my mood. I have never successfully convinced any trumpet that their sources were bogus either.
They believe because they want to in my experience.
And because we frequently speak outside DU you know my story of the family friend who belongs to and believes in QAnon.
People generally enjoy deluding themselves.
Or at least the ones who act similarly to hypnotized chickens do.
I wonder how long it will take to convince people to return to sanity once trump is gone.
How long did it take after Nixon?
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)your last question. It's actually a very interesting topic.
It has to be viewed in several overlapping ways. The republican Senators generally got over it fairly quickly. They viewed Nixon as a toxic ball & chain on the party. As new Senators began taking office in the Reagan era, they were happy that the Democrats didn't go the impeachment route with the Gipper, even though they knew the Gipster had committed impeachable acts.
The House republicans were a different story. Even many who would have voted to impeach Nixon had a large, boulder-sized chip on their shoulders that carried on. Many of the newer ones from the Reagan-Bush era were intent upon getting "revenge" as soon as they saw any opportunity. And, as we saw, that carried through to Clinton. That's not to suggest Clinton didn't mess up -- he did. But it was not the type of thing the impeachment process was intended to address. Indeed, while it was technically about lying under oath, it was evident that they were really upset that Bill got a BJ from a young lady.
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)Now, for the moment, my lawyer told me not to discuss QAnon, and how it originally began as a YIPPE-type of prank. It was only supposed to divide republicans leading up to the 2018 mid-term elections, but rapidly went out of control shortly thereafter. I'm not sure who is filling them full of shit these days. But I understand it is being investigated now, as a potentially violent group.
The sheep that follow that type of thing are, as you know, accurately described in the story of Kundalini. Make a conscious attempt to think of that fable when you encounter Trumpets, and keep in mind that people who sleepwalk really aren't responsible for the foolishness they spout. Their "insights" tend to be about as insightful as a frightened hen's clucking.
coeur_de_lion
(3,686 posts)It makes me wonder about other family and friends who stubbornly cling to their illusions in the face of hard facts.
Is QAnon more widespread than we know?
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)It has spread, because there are more "super-secret agents" spreading nonsense. It appeals to bottom-feeders. Even the rabid republicans in the House know it is fiction.
coeur_de_lion
(3,686 posts)Isnt that a kind of Yoga?
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)My numerous physical injuries have resulted in all my doctors saying to avoid Yoga. A couple of my children are big on it, especially the "hot Yoga" version. But I know nothing about it myself.
Kundalini is an old fable about humanity, and the mechanical habit of unconscious people to follow false gods and corrupt prophets. If memory serves me correctly -- always questionable -- I believe the most famous version comes from Russia a century ago. Perhaps it isn't mainstream in our country. But as you know, I am not mainstream, either!
H2O Man
(73,637 posts)I googled it; it is a type of Yoga, and there are numerous other interesting things listed there. None of them appear to touch upon the old Russian story that I was speaking of. I shall look through a couple of the old texts from one of my book shelves, and add more here later if you want.