• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Who’s Afraid of Impeachment? On Presidential Investigation and a 2020 Backlash

Photograph Source: Kathy Drasky – CC BY 2.0

There has been quite a bit of prophesizing among pundits in the news media, on the right and elsewhere, and even among some on the left with which I’ve spoken, in which critics confidently maintain that impeachment is a “gift” to Trump, dividing the nation, but mobilizing and energizing Trump’s base, thereby handing the election to Trump. These claims are almost entirely based on fear and conjecture, not on actual evidence. If we look back to the limited history of this country’s use of impeachment against presidents in modern times, there is little evidence to draw from one way or another, and certainly no cases that are equivalent to this one, in terms of telling us how impeachment will impact an election that is so far into the future – an entire year from now.

Conceding the uncertainty associated with the inquiry against Trump, available evidence suggests there is little reason to be engaging in fearmongering on impeachment. Going back to the looming impeachment of Richard Nixon following the emergence of the Watergate scandal, we see no evidence that the removal strategy harmed Democrats. Republicans lost 49 seats in the House in 1974, while losing another 5 in the Senate. Gerald Ford’s reputation – as measured by his job approval rating – quickly nosedived following his pardon of Nixon, and Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election, defeating Ford, while Democrats gained a seat in the House of Representatives, while losing one seat in the Senate. In other words, there were no observable repercussions for the Democrats for forcing Nixon from office.

A second case worth examining is the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton. This is the most egregious use of impeachment against a sitting president in modern times, since it was used against Clinton after he lied about engaging in consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky. This was an extremely cynical example of impeachment, as a nakedly partisan political move, considering the figures in the Republican Party who led the impeachment – Newt Gingrich in the Senate and Bob Livingston in the House – were engaged in their own extra-marital affairs at the time, while hypocritically and sanctimoniously condemning Clinton for his infidelity. Even in this extreme case, there is little to no evidence of an electoral backlash against the Republicans. They lost only 5 seats in the House of Representatives in the 1998 midterms, and lost no seats in the Senate. Furthermore, Republicans won the presidential election in 2000, and the impeachment of Clinton may have played a significant role in that victory. It is well known that Democratic candidate Al Gore avoided joint appearances in public with Bill Clinton, for fear that his association with the President would harm his re-election chances. It is difficult to say for sure, since counterfactuals are impossible to prove, but Gore may well have carried the 2000 election if he had relied more heavily on the rhetorical skills of, and public support for a sitting president who was widely recognized to be a charismatic speaker, and whose popularity with the public grew throughout his second term due to an extended period of economic growth in the mid to late 1990s. Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton and his racist, classist, neoliberal politics, Gore’s shunning his help in 2000 was probably a big tactical mistake, especially for a Democratic presidential candidate (Gore) who had as much charm as a rusty doorknob.

The best available data that allows us to predict what may come of Trump’s impeachment inquiry is Trump’s impeachment itself. And the available evidence gives us little indication that impeachment is going to harm the Democrats, at least at this point in time. Available polling data from late September finds that American voters are equally split regarding impeachment, with 43 percent supportive and 43 percent opposed. Furthermore, support for impeachment has grown by 7 percentage points from a week earlier. There is little in this data to suggest that impeachment is going to galvanize a mass electoral turnout in favor of the Democrats. On the other hand, there’s also nothing here to suggest that it will hurt the Democrats, and if support for impeachment continues to grow among voters, it may increase Democrats’ perception that impeachment will help their electoral chances next year.

Finally, there is the matter of Democratic strategizing over impeachment, and the concerns that a failure to proceed with an impeachment inquiry will anger and alienate the Democratic base. The reality of the matter is that the Democrats are up against the wall regarding impeachment. The alternative to beginning an impeachment inquiry is empowering Trump to continue manufacturing a pseudo scandal involving Democratic Presidential front runner Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, regarding the father’s alleged push to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor who took legal action against a Ukrainian gas company that was employing Biden’s son. But Trump and other critics have presented no evidence whatsoever that the firing of Ukraine’s prosecutor was motivated by an effort to shield Biden’s son’s company from punishment. Trump’s claims regarding the firing are heavily conspiratorial, in light of the lack of evidence presented, and his claims would likely have continued to gain traction without the initiation of an impeachment inquiry. Impeachment is focusing public attention on Trump’s own actions with regard to pushing Ukraine’s government to provide dirt on Biden, which Trump sought to use to his advantage in the 2020 election. Allowing Trump to create a pseudo scandal moving into 2020 would be a foolish move for the Democrats. This point should be clear when considering the harm that Hillary Clinton’s own pseudo “email scandal” appears to have had on her electoral prospects in 2016.

The FBI found no evidence that Clinton had endangered national security or committed criminal acts by using a private server in some of her communications as head of the State Department under Obama. And yet this manufactured scandal – promoted by Trump and his supporters – may have significantly harmed Clinton’s support from voters in the days before the election. In the case of the Biden “scandal,” it seems clear that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is proactively moving to diffuse any negative effects that could result from Trump’s quest to derail Biden’s candidacy. The alternative to taking action is doing nothing, and allowing the Democratic Party to continue to be a punching bag for a president who has shown he will shamelessly use his powers as president to coerce foreign leaders, in pursuit of political dirt against his electoral opponents.

Two key points emerge here. First, Democrats have realized that there is a real risk in sitting by and allowing themselves to be assaulted by Trump, while doing little to fight back. The Democratic base wants a party that will fight back against this president’s authoritarian antics and bullying. Doing nothing reinforces the idea that the Democrats do not have spines, and that they will not engage in an active campaign to defeat Trump in 2020. Pelosi has shown via impeachment inquiry that the neoliberal wing of the party, while happy to roll over for corporate interests, will not be willingly run over by Trump’s blatant partisan electioneering.

Second, the enactment of the impeachment inquiry demonstrates that Democrats recognize the significant power inherent in setting the political agenda for how the media and Americans discuss electoral politics. Notice that, with the onset of an impeachment inquiry, the discussion in the mass media is not whether Biden engaged in a corrupt act by pushing for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor. The story now is whether Trump violated basic ethical standards by seeking to bribe and coerce a foreign leader, and whether he should be impeached for his actions. The discussion is now shifting from Biden to Trump, and the question at hand is not if Trump is likely to be impeached, but when, and whether or not he will be removed from office.

Numerous progressives I’ve spoken with, in addition to Trump supporters, claim this impeachment inquiry is entirely theatrical, since there is “no chance” of a Republican Senate removing this president. But there is simply no way to know for sure how the Senate will behave if confronted with a vote over presidential removal. Republican Senator Jeff Flake estimates that as many as 35 Senate Republicans would vote to remove Trump, if the vote is done in secret, to avoid reprisal from Trump voters. Thirty-five Republican Senators is more than enough to remove Trump, when combined with a unified Democratic vote against Trump. So the reality of the matter is that those pushing the “impeachment is doomed to fail” line are speculating on what may happen in an unknowable future – but one in which Trump’s removal is possible, even if not probable at this moment.

There are, of course, dangers that impeachment brings. One is that the 2020 election becomes merely a mandate on Trump, rather than about establishing a progressive vision for policy change. I have no doubt that Biden and Pelosi would love to make the 2020 election into nothing more than a mandate on Trump, which would allow them to divert public attention from the growing support within the Democratic Party for the progressive, New Deal-style reforms promoted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. These policies are strongly opposed by neoliberal establishment types like Pelosi and Biden, so there is a real risk in allowing the impeachment agenda to hijack political discourse in the run-up to 2020.

But the dangers accompanying impeachment simply mean that it needs to be pursued as soon as possible, and that the matter – whether Democrats succeed or fail in removing Trump – needs to be settled well before election day 2020. I’ve seen no compelling evidence to suggest that impeachment, by itself, will produce a mass groundswell in 2020 to sweep the Democrats into power in the Senate, or win the White House. The party needs a candidate who inspires young Americans, swing voters, and disillusioned ex-voters who have flocked from the party over the years due to its elitist, neoliberal policies. And without a progressive campaign of the Sanders-Warren variety, there is little reason to think that the Democrats are going to prevail in 2020 over Trump.

None of this, however, means that Democrats should avoid impeachment. It simply means that Democratic voters need to be careful moving into the primary to avoid empowering Democratic insider candidates – of which Biden is the most extreme example – who seek to make 2020 about Trump’s corruption, rather than about the articulation of a progressive platform for change. The best way to avoid this scenario is to elect a progressive candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the 2020 election – one who will put policy reform, not impeachment, at the center of his or her electoral agenda.

 

More articles by:

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 23, 2019
Kenneth Surin
Western China and the New Silk Road
W. T. Whitney
Stirrings of Basic Change Accompany Protests in Haiti
Louisa Willcox
Inviting the Chief of the Grizzlies to Our Feast
Jonathan Cook
The Democrats Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS
Dave Lindorff
Military Spending’s Out of Control While Slashing It Could Easily Fund Medicare for All
John Kendall Hawkins
With 2020 Hindsight, the Buffoonery Ahead
Jesse Hagopian
The Chicago Teachers Strike: “Until We Get What Our Students Deserve”
Saad Hafiz
America’s Mission to Remake Afghanistan Has Failed
Victor Grossman
Thoughts on the Impeachment of Donald Trump
Binoy Kampmark
Celebrity Protesters and Extinction Rebellion
John Horning
Spotted Owls and the National Christmas Tree
October 22, 2019
Gary Leupp
The Kurds as U.S. Sacrificial Lambs
Robert Fisk
Trump and the Retreat of the American Empire
John Feffer
Trump’s Endless Wars
Marshall Auerback
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Trump’s Fake Withdrawal From Endless War
Dean Baker
Trump Declares Victory in China Trade War
Patrick Bond
Bretton Woods Institutions’ Neoliberal Over-Reach Leaves Global Governance in the Gutter
Robert Hunziker
XR Co-Founder Discusses Climate Emergency
John W. Whitehead
Terrorized, Traumatized and Killed: The Police State’s Deadly Toll on America’s Children
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security
Binoy Kampmark
The Decent Protester: a Down Under Creation
Frances Madeson
Pro-Democracy Movement in Haiti Swells Despite Police Violence
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Challenges Logging and Burning Project in Methow Valley
Chelli Stanley
Change the Nation You Live In
Elliot Sperber
Humane War 
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail