When we won back the House in 2006, the hope of regulating the Republicans was restored, somewhat. Unfortunately, nobody had the stomach to raise the stakes on the Republicans and go after their crimes. Why? Because Democrats, as Pelosi said at the time, despite the fact we'd been treated unfairly by the GOP when they had the majority:
“are not about getting even” with Republicans. Pelosi NYT
The leadership, perhaps mistakenly, thought that with the Republicans electorally rebuked in 2006, the Republicans would behave like normal people. For that reason despite the fact that the GOP had:
“frequently excluded Democrats from conference committee hearings and ... blocked attempts to introduce amendments, would not suffer similar treatment. Pelosi NYT
We knew that the country could only prosper if the two parties can work together and so she:
“pledge[d] civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we ... partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president — not partisanship.” Pelosi NYT
Bipartisanship and getting the work of a functional Government was more important, to her, than duking it out with partisan Republicans. We really thought we could work with the Republicans.
Equal Application of the Law IS Justice
The trouble is, they had revealed who they were when they had the majority during the Bush Administration, and before, when they had impeached Bill Clinton on petty charges when they had a majority before. Extending an olive branch to unreconstructed bullies, just encourages them to escalate. As my Wife had explained about teaching:
“If you show up on the first day of class extending an olive branch and talking about how much fun the semester will be, some students might respond well, but most will see that as weakness and walk all over you.”
My Wife would lay down the law on the first day of class. Her students either loved her or dropped the class, but they learned from her. And most came to love her because she enforced discipline. The constitution is an overarching discipline, ethic, that shouldn't require external power to enforce, but when it does, it has to be done from the beginning of a person's tenure or it is lost.
Move on Or Reign in
Pelosi also:
“extended an olive branch to Bush on the war in Iraq, saying she plans to work with him on a new plan but will not support the current strategy and supports beginning redeployment of troops by the end of the year.” Pelosi NYT
Her theory was that the crimes that George Bush had committed were “policy disagreements.”
- Abu Gharaib,
- Indefinite detention
- Torture
- illegal phone intercepts
- & other matters including outing Valerie Plame as an undercover agent to take down a critic,
- Fraud establishing the cassus belli the Iraq War
- Purging the office of the Attorney General
- etc...
...were all mere policy disagreements that didn't rise to the level of Impeachment? As if!
Off the Table?
And so she and the incoming Democratic Majority (or majority of Democrats because not everyone agreed) did something I still disagree with:
““I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference. Pelosi NYT
I believe it was a mistake, because the issue was not a mere policy disagreement. It was more fundamental than whether torture is appropriate as an interrogation method. It is illegal. Not punishing such abuses gives impunity to lawbreaking and only encourages more lawbreaking. Worse:
If the President Does it it's legal
As is evident in what is going on with Trump. Underlying Abu Gharaib, warrantless wiretapping and the whole host of GOP perfidy, dating back to Nixon, was the notion of Unitary Executive. The Nixonian notion that:
“if the president does it, it is legal.”
Underlying Dubya's crimes, was the same rationale as Reagan, his Dad and Richard Nixon had advanced. If the President and his crew get an Office of Legal Council memo written that justifies “enhanced interogation”, it doesn't matter if the UN Convention on Torture outlaws those questioning techniques, it's now legal, because a team of Lawyers and the President, say it is legal. And naturally, the Office of Legal Counsel claim that:
“the President cannot be indicted for a crime while he's in office.”
Impeachment is the remedy for Abuse of Power
Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe impeachment was off the table for the President. But impeaching or rebuking and censuring, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and others for crimes committed during their offices should have been on the table, because the lawbreaking involved, legal or not, in applying the theory that the President is above the law, leads to abuses of power and contempt of congress, which both Yoo and Gonzales were guilty of. At the very least these needed to be censured by both houses!
Let's Move on!
But Pelosi's theory in 2006 was that somehow Democratic excellence in legislation and the 2008 election would allow the Democrats to correct these excesses without the House impeaching anyone. The courts would deal with the lawbreaking. Trouble is the courts weren't going to deal with the lawbreaking. Not when they depend on Judicial officers who agree with it. At the very least we needed resolutions censuring these people and their policies. The House could censure these obnoxious assertions, reassert what is correct, and establish that:
- No One, not even the President, is above the law.
- No one, not even the President, is beyond the reach of the courts.
- The executives in the Judiciary are Officers of the Court, not solely employees of the President.
- Congress makes the law, not the executive.
- The Country is a Democratic Republic that rests on the sacredness of the vote and citizens right to vote.
The Disaster of “Moving On”
The House focused on Working with George W. Bush. The election that followed in 2008 was interrupted by a massive economic collapse caused by massive lawbreaking, enabled by piratical laws and de-regulations, that had been passed by the GOP congress, but not seriously challenged by US Democrats. Our disagreements with the Republicans weren't merely about "policy" disagreements, they were about rule of law. Obama was elected on a platform of restoring rule of law.
When Obama was elected, I remember sending emails and even written letters to Eric Holder, begging him to prosecute the people who had committed crimes under George W. Bush and the Wall Street Con artists who had gone to extremes of fraud and trickery, and then crashed the economy.
The Substitute Teacher -- Real Life Rodney Dangerfields aren't Funny
The reason is that the result of this one sided effort to “get along to go along” was that we Democrats didn't get any respect or earn any credit for our efforts to regulate wall street by closing Barn doors, and save the economy. Large swaths of White America took one look at Obama's swarthy features and Nancy's School Marm demeanor, and rebelled. They treated both of them as substitute teachers, who came into class thinking that the students would stop throwing spit balls when they waved an olive branch.
The Answer to Authoritarianism is Authoritative Government
Trump Enabling Authoritarians
The GOP put together a "TEA Party" -- initially "Taxed Enough Already" but now "Trumper Enabling Authoritarians," that pretended to be upset about abuses of the Obama Administration but was actually ginned up with racism and conspiracy theories. Subsequently the GOP elected a majority and took over the house, trumped up one fake scandal after another, blocked everything that makes good government, and abused their legislative power to block progress on needed spending measures. They might have done that anyway, but they had shown who they were when they had majority power during the 90s and never changed their spots. Being tough with them early on, might not have stopped them from trying to run over Pelosi and Obama, but more likely, they'd have been forced to respect process and rule of law. Benghazi was bull crap. So was Fast and Furious.
With Benghazi The GOP cut funds for Embassy Security, and then acted like a crime had been committed when the Libyan Embassy was overrun by Islamic Extremists using anger at a dumb video as an excuse.
When I screwed up with my late wife, she'd tell me “I don't pardon you,” she wanted real behavior changes, not mere glad handing or lip service. We need to pursue impeachment, whether or not we can get an impeachment, in order to reassert the principles this country is built on. Or we will lose it to lawless fascists, who pretend to believe in rule of law but believe in autarchy.
I believe they only happened because we did not put them on the defensive in 2006-2009. I love Speaker Pelosi. She now is learning that lesson. No more Substitute Teacher!
Related Posts and Sources
- Impeachment As Regulation
- https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-unholy-alliance.html
- https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2019/09/oversight-including-impeachment.html
- https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-house-must-invoke-its-impeachment.html
- https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html?pagewanted=all
Good one, Chris.
ReplyDeleteThis caught my eye: "When Obama was elected, I remember sending emails and even written letters to Eric Holder..."
My late husband, prof Poli Sci, used to do the same thing (all handwritten). When Obama offered the olive branch, he wrote a long epistle to Rahm Emanuel, thinking a tough Chicago pol might be able to teach him a thing or two. In the end, he was disappointed with all of them, but we're loyals Dems, so.... (insert shrug emoji)