POLITICS OCTOBER 6, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office.
Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense.
It is safe to say that Issa’s threshold of what constitutes an impeachable offense is not terribly high. As it happens, should Republicans win control of the House, Issa would bring his hair-trigger finger to the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Sestak pseudo-scandal disappeared because there was no process to drive the story forward. Had Issa been running the Oversight Committee, it would have been the subject of hearings and subpoenas.
And it is not as if Issa’s interest in the Sestak case springs from some idiosyncratic obsession with the generally common practice of using executive-branch jobs to lure candidates out of the Senate. His taste in Obama-related scandal is catholic. In addition to the Sestak allegations, Issa has called for the investigation or disclosure of matters weighty and not-so-weighty, including the so-called Climategate e-mail controversy, congressional recipients of friendly loans from Countrywide, the methodology behind the government’s statistics on jobs “created or saved,” the Treasury’s prior knowledge of the AIG bonuses, the leaking of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud suit against Goldman Sachs, the District of Columbia school vouchers program, all taxpayer-funded White House trips on behalf of Democratic candidates, the administration’s response to the BP oil spill and its drilling moratorium, National Labor Relations Board nominee Craig Becker’s possible conflict of interest, the “executive branch’s approach to food safety,” potential collusion between General Motors and the Treasury, and the firing of the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, plus many, many others.
This merely covers Obama’s first 20 months in office. No doubt more outrages would command Issa’s attention. Just as a rigorous IRS audit of a taxpayer is bound to turn up something, an investigation by the likes of Issa will eventually produce a scandal. Once you have grasped hold of the investigative machinery, the process drives itself. “We would never go looking for a scandal—they come to us,” Issa explained to National Review. “Typically, it is not the crime but the cover-up. The scandal comes when administration officials try to circumvent, not report, or distort what is happening.”
Obviously, Issa cannot impeach the president by himself. That would take a vote by the House of Representatives. But once a major figure like Issa puts impeachment on the table, it is impossible to imagine the rest of the party failing to go along. A December poll found that 35 percent of Republicans already favor impeaching Obama, with just 48 percent opposed and the balance undecided. That is a large base of support to impeach Obama for literally anything at all.
Once Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and the like collectively decide that this or that incident represents an intolerable abuse of power by the Obama administration, the conservative base will go from supporting impeachment to demanding it. At that point, the acquiescence of the House GOP would become inevitable. Since Obama took office, whatever willingness the party establishment had to resist the impulses of its base has been submerged beneath a wave of right-wing primary challenges.
The Republicans wouldn’t dare repeat the mistake they made by impeaching Clinton, you say? You’re not thinking like a Republican. In the conservative mind, the impeachment crusade was not a political miscalculation but a misty, watercolored memory. A 2006 National Review retrospective of impeachment leader Henry Hyde captures the right’s view:
His only regret involves tactics. ... “I should have demanded that Monica Lewinsky and Clinton testify.” Although Hyde did not achieve his main objective, it would be wrong to view the entire project as a failure.
In this interpretation, the process sufficiently tarnished Clinton so that his vice president was unable to run on the administration’s accomplishments and was easily tarred as a liar during the crucial stretch in October 2000 when the media pounced upon Gore’s veracity. “There are 13 people who are responsible for where we are now,” a Bush adviser told The Weekly Standard shortly before the 2000 election. “They are the House impeachment managers.”
The Clinton impeachment does not offer a useful guide to the Obama presidency if you think of it solely as a punishment for Clinton’s crime. But it’s more accurate to think about the Clinton impeachment as political warfare by other means against a president conservatives deemed illegitimate.
David Bossie, a conservative activist who worked for then-House Oversight Chairman Dan Burton, recently told The Daily Beast that he had been convinced Clinton was a left-wing sleeper agent, but now realizes he was wrong. “If you look back now with the benefit of hindsight, oh how I wish he was president today compared to this guy in there now,” observes Bossie. “That guy in there now is truly a radical.”
This is the conservative view of Obama—a left-wing radical who seized power via an economic crisis, smuggled radical views into the White House, and used unfair tactics to force an unpopular transformative left-wing agenda upon a conservative country.
The history of modern Washington is a history of the social norms that once restrained political parties from no-holds-barred warfare falling by the wayside, one by one. Why would Republicans impeach Obama? The better question is, why wouldn’t they?
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor for The New Republic. This piece ran in the October 28, 2010 issue, of the magazine.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
23 comments
Because it would be stupid. I mean, they'll buy themselves a race war. People aren't going to take it lying down, because they'll know it's because Obama's skin tone isn't to their taste, not because of high crimes and misdemeanors.
- ironyroad
October 13, 2010 at 12:30am
I'm glad you've put this in print before the fact. This gives any argument about the idiocy of future impeachment proceedings much more credibility down the road, when the Republicans actually carry out the crazy plans you've predicted. I just can't help thinking how ironic this would be for Obama, considering, for one thing, how he decided early in his presidency not to investigate any of the lapses of the Bush presidency. Obama basically ran his presidency as an experiment in the effectiveness of taking the high road. If you're right, I think his earnestness will ultimately prove something, but unfortunately it will be the opposite of what he wanted it to prove.
- MICRM
October 13, 2010 at 1:17am
Yeah it would figure. I still haven't forgiven Gingrich, et.al., for hounding Clinton - if anything he's now sunk even deeper. It's hard not to worry about the state of our nation.
- Sophia
October 13, 2010 at 1:25am
I doubt the impeachment is coming. The President should have the economy working his way by the 2nd term and there will be more important things. However, in the House of Reps the Hon. Ms Pelosi hasn't exactly drained the swamp. The Republicans will start their ethics investigations on about 6-10 Reps and the public will cheer them on. With that House cleaning that the Democrats failed to do, it could set the stage for bigger game.
- CRS9TNR
October 13, 2010 at 7:02am
Watching the Frontline series on religion in America I was struck by the change in direction of the country. In the 19th century and early 20th century, there were two competing camps, the "conservative" camp that opposed modernity and resisted any change (think William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial) and the "liberal" camp that welcomed modernity and accepted change (think Rabbi Wise and Reform Judaism) . Of course, it was modernity and change that prevailed. Today the nation is once again facing the same battle between those who oppose and those who accept modernity and change. But unlike 100 years ago, when a secular nation favored modernity, today the secular nation and spiritual nation have joined forces to oppose modernity. And it is those same forces, who in the last century would fail in their efforts to impeach FDR, but would impeach the more mainstream Obama as a radical.
- rayward
October 13, 2010 at 7:58am
God help us all if that happens. It will mean that the Republicans are not interested in the best interests of this country (even if you disagree w/ Obama's politics, which I do.) It will mean they are only interested in the interests of those footign the bill for the republican Party and their candidates. Does Obama mispronounce the rethuglicans party name like Bush did? Has Obama personally, and publicly, questioned anybody elected officials patriotism. Apples to apples and all that.
- e065702
October 13, 2010 at 8:14am
Last time it was about payback. First came the minigates: like Travelgate and Whitewatergate (because it was their first chance for payback after Nixon). And we had payback for the Iran Contra Scandal. Now we will get payback for Scooter Libby. A Caucasian will have applied for a Whitehouse job and allegedly been declined based on race. A lawsuit will start. Rahm Immanuel will take a hit. Each of us can expect a subpoena at one time or another over the next 6 years.
- Nusholtz
October 13, 2010 at 8:48am
I agree with irony's broad point - whatever state of apathy Obama supporters are in during this cycle, an impeachment between now and 2012 will galvanize them to 2008 levels, not necessarily out of hope, but out of sheer pissed-offness.
- NR409654
October 13, 2010 at 9:43am
I predicted after Clinton was re-elected in 1996 that the far-right would try to literally assassinate the President. In effect the impeach nonsense was a form of coup d'etat that failed but has defined the GOP ever since. I have been listening to Nicholas Lehman's book "Redemption" about the Reconstruction era, rings true today!
- NR027810
October 13, 2010 at 10:17am
"The President should have the economy working his way by the 2nd term and there will be more important things." That would be nice, but Job One for the Republicans -- well, *maybe* cutting taxes comes first -- is always to challenge the legitimacy of Democrats in power and the loyalty of Democrats in the opposition. (After all, the Clinton-era economy was just dandy.)
- frippo
October 13, 2010 at 10:57am
"It is safe to say that Issa’s threshold of what constitutes an impeachable offense ...." Well, for a nigger Democrat at any rate; if W had been found with a dead goat in in his bed and a stash of renmibi in the White House safe, I doubt very much if Issa would have considered it impeachable.
- icarusr
October 13, 2010 at 11:46am
The fact that they are being treated unfairly now-- and wi;ll get worse in the future--- is also no reason to keep an inept politician in office.. Especially when their ineptitude in unwillingness to really fight backj increases the probability of their being treated unfairly. If BHO and the Senate Dems prove their ineptitude by losing big-time in the midterms, they too need replacing as well as the crazies that are replacing some of them.
- drofnats1
October 13, 2010 at 12:01pm
Prosperity would be a good reason for Republicans to try to impeach him. It would distract from his accomplishments.
- arock28
October 13, 2010 at 12:09pm
There are limits to Republican stupidity. Impeachment is one of them. Very few Congress members personally dislike Obama, whose personal and professional lives seem to be unproblematical. By contrast, a lot of Republicans personally hated Clinton, and Clinton probably did commit was was technically perjury. Obama has done nothing of the sort, and the Republican leadership knows it. I'm sure it will quickly squelch efforts by the 20 -- 30 Republican members who might be crazy enough to bring a serious impeachment effort (serious, as opposed to those attention-grabbing impeachment filings which occur in every Congress).
- JohnEMack
October 13, 2010 at 1:14pm
There might be limits to their stupidity, but I see no form of constraint on the megalomania. They will do whatever they can to get that black man out of the White House, and I'm not so sure they would stop short of committing crimes in order to do so. There are otherwise seemingly intelligent people who sincerely believe Obama is a Fasci-Nazi that is making great headway into converting America into a socialist paradise, and that he has not proved his citizenship because he provided a Certificate of Live Birth issued from the state of Hawaii instead of an actual United States Birth Certificate like theirs. These people will undoubtedly press for an impeachment and at the first peep from anyone on Faux, or Rush, it will become the mandate of the next session of Congress. In fact, I think will take an extraordinary effort from the GOP to prevent such an occurrance and I don't think anyone who has that kind of power is terribly interested in preventing it, especially if it keeps Congress from focusing on fixing what's wrong with the economy or leads to shutdowns of the government; hell, they WANT shutdowns of the government and have already said they'll go there if they have to in order to break Obama's fasci-nazi grip on American Values.
- GSpinks
October 13, 2010 at 1:31pm
The point that Issa would chair the oversight committee deserves wider publicity. Also, I read that the committee which oversees energy policy would be chaired by the guy who apologized to BP. A Democratic campaign commercial (whether by TV, e-mail, facebook, whatever) could list and describe the Republicans in line to chair various committees. This might motivate some progressive voters who are not yet in the "likely voter" category.
- bjones
October 13, 2010 at 2:19pm
Sad. True.
- janus
October 13, 2010 at 2:20pm
Anything that would make 2012 a replay of 1998 would be a good thing. If the Republicans try to impeach Obama on flimsy charges, no one but the most ardent hack will consider voting Republican in two years. If we can't get anything productive done, let's at least give them whatever rope they need to hang themselves.
- sighthnd
October 13, 2010 at 5:05pm
I think future historians will not blink an eye over the impeachment of Barack Obama. However, they will stare in wild-eyed wonder over the Democrat's unforgivable failure to impeach Bush and Cheney.
- BruceGGGG
October 13, 2010 at 7:29pm
I'm with irony, and I'd add that the prospect of repealing or crippling health care reform, in addition to fury over their spending all that time and energy (and money!) while jobs-jobs-jobs still haven't recovered kindles me to rage—the kind that will push even sedentary cynical li'l ol' me over the edge, where radical action is born again.
- Tgossard
October 13, 2010 at 7:41pm
Dream on oh heavenly muse(s). Why impeach a perceived incompetent? Today the great man allowed as to how shovel-ready projects are not as easy to get-going as he had supposed. Why are they harder to get off the ground for him than they were for FDR? Because every Democratic constituency has been empowered since then. Want to build a bridge? First survive the judicial challenges by the environmentalists. Then we have the preservationists. Then we have the unions: Davis-Bacon. Then we have the minorities. Are they getting their share of the work? What interest group have I missed? To this Republican's mind, TARP was a success for Bush and Obama. The latter can't claim success; the loyalists hated it. The stimulus was a limited success; the base got 99 weeks of unemployment. They're not content. They expected the president to put them back to work by now, particularly the state and local government crowd. The elite aren't happy either. Krugman et al claim Keynesianism wasn't tried. Obama bailed out the auto industry. Dems doing well in the midwest? Then we have the latest foreclosure tragicomedy. The administration correctly backs away from national moratorium enthusiasts, because the non-payers who want their houses back stand in the way of young people who bought, or want to buy, on terms they can afford. Why would Rs interrupt the progress of this administration--at least before 2012? Is there a competent economist anywhere who believes that those who are suffering the most from this awful downturn --i.e., the Democratic base -- are going to feel grand two years from now? How about Krugman? I have zero illusions that McCain, had he been elected, would be faring much better politically than Obama at this point. Not sure that FDR would do better. We have dug ourselves a big hole, and the ins take the heat.
- lsernoff
October 13, 2010 at 9:05pm
Too bad Obama will not be able to do what FDR did: spend massively to stimulate the economy *three times*, which was necessary to ensure a full recovery. We continue to underestimate the degree this recession will depress jobs over the better part of a decade, not one two or even three years.
- Tgossard
October 13, 2010 at 9:22pm
"I have zero illusions that McCain, had he been elected, would be faring much better politically than Obama at this point." This has got to be the dumbest thing I've read since the last rationale post. Of course not, because the Congressional Democrats wouldn't go all "Al Qaida" on the federal government like the Congressional Republicans have. The Democrats would still do their best to govern this country and bring us out of this recession; and the Republicans would be playing the appropriate supporting role because they have control of the Presidency and the Democrats don't have the super-majority required to over-power a veto. Of course, then you have to factor in the probable course of the legislative agenda. McCain would be in a far worse position politically because the people who are hoping mad now because they're still having to trim back their grocery bills would be hoping mad because they've had to pull Junior out of the private prep school, let the loan on the Escalade lapse, and actually eat beans and dogs for dinner a couple times per week.
- GSpinks
October 14, 2010 at 1:14pm