Posted by Jed Lewison on Sat May 19, 2007 at 1:59 AM Pacific

To impeach or not to impeach

It seems like whenever the subject of impeaching President Bush arises, the debate centers on which party would reap the political benefits. Since Democrats would lead the impeachment, the issue then becomes whether or not impeachment would boost Democratic electoral prospects.

Thus, the obvious -- and far more important -- question of what impeachment would mean for the country and the world gets overlooked.

There are two reasons for criminal law: punishment and deterrence. Criminal law, as witnessed by the U.S. attorneys scandal, is not something that should be used to make a political point.

All but the most extreme political hacks agree that the impeachment of President Clinton was about politics, not criminal law. And all but the most extreme political hacks agree that Democrats shouldn't impeach President Bush as revenge for the impeachment of President Clinton.

Most of us agree that we should never again impeach a President for political reasons. But at the same time, we should never fail to impeach a President for political reasons.

Democrats may fear that impeaching President Bush would look like revenge for impeaching President Clinton. But if he deserves impeachment, letting him walk to avoid that appearance would be just as bad.

Electoral politics is the short-term battle for power. Over the long-run, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are not nearly as large as they seem in any given campaign.

Iraq, the biggest issue of the day, reflects this reality. The war was started with widespread Democratic support, and now that it has become clear that we must withdraw, Republicans are jumping off Bush's ship. Let us not forget that a Democratic president bears the primary responsibility for Vietnam; many more Americans died in that conflict under LBJ than under Nixon.

Generally speaking, I prefer Democrats to Republicans, but I have a greater preference for freedom, justice, peace, and sustainable growth than I do either party.

Therefore, I believe that President Bush should be impeached if he has established a clear and consistent pattern of lawlessness and abuse of power.

Think about President Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Quite likely, the short-term impacts of that decision were positive for the country: Nixon left office and the Watergate scandal instantly became history. But if Nixon had actually faced impeachment and then criminal responsibility for his actions, might not the long-term impacts have been better for the country? Instead of sending a message that the worst possible scenario for a President is losing his job (something that will happen anyway), wouldn't it be better to declare that a President who believes he is above the law will go to jail?

At some point, we need to put our foot down and say that if a President continually and habitually and intentionally violates the law, that President should be removed from office and sent to jail. For some, whether or President Bush rises to that level is a matter of debate. But that's the debate that we should be having, not a debate about poll numbers.

In thirty years or sixty years or one hundred years from now, when children learn about this presidential administration in grade school, do we want them to learn that the Constitution is more important than politics, or that politics is more important than the Constitution?

To impeach or not to impeach

It seems like whenever the subject of impeaching President Bush arises, the debate centers on which party would reap the political benefits. Since Democrats would lead the impeachment, the issue then becomes whether or not impeachment would boost Democratic electoral prospects.

Thus, the obvious -- and far more important -- question of what impeachment would mean for the country and the world gets overlooked.

There are two reasons for criminal law: punishment and deterrence. Criminal law, as witnessed by the U.S. attorneys scandal, is not something that should be used to make a political point.

All but the most extreme political hacks agree that the impeachment of President Clinton was about politics, not criminal law. And all but the most extreme political hacks agree that Democrats shouldn't impeach President Bush as revenge for the impeachment of President Clinton.

Most of us agree that we should never again impeach a President for political reasons. But at the same time, we should never fail to impeach a President for political reasons.

Democrats may fear that impeaching President Bush would look like revenge for impeaching President Clinton. But if he deserves impeachment, letting him walk to avoid that appearance would be just as bad.

Electoral politics is the short-term battle for power. Over the long-run, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are not nearly as large as they seem in any given campaign.

Iraq, the biggest issue of the day, reflects this reality. The war was started with widespread Democratic support, and now that it has become clear that we must withdraw, Republicans are jumping off Bush's ship. Let us not forget that a Democratic president bears the primary responsibility for Vietnam; many more Americans died in that conflict under LBJ than under Nixon.

Generally speaking, I prefer Democrats to Republicans, but I have a greater preference for freedom, justice, peace, and sustainable growth than I do either party.

Therefore, I believe that President Bush should be impeached if he has established a clear and consistent pattern of lawlessness and abuse of power.

Think about President Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Quite likely, the short-term impacts of that decision were positive for the country: Nixon left office and the Watergate scandal instantly became history. But if Nixon had actually faced impeachment and then criminal responsibility for his actions, might not the long-term impacts have been better for the country? Instead of sending a message that the worst possible scenario for a President is losing his job (something that will happen anyway), wouldn't it be better to declare that a President who believes he is above the law will go to jail?

At some point, we need to put our foot down and say that if a President continually and habitually and intentionally violates the law, that President should be removed from office and sent to jail. For some, whether or President Bush rises to that level is a matter of debate. But that's the debate that we should be having, not a debate about poll numbers.

In thirty years or sixty years or one hundred years from now, when children learn about this presidential administration in grade school, do we want them to learn that the Constitution is more important than politics, or that politics is more important than the Constitution?

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison