nakedcapitalism.com
The two-year Mueller investigation of
Donald Trump’s alleged collusion (“largely synonymous with conspiracy”) with
Russia is over. Nothingburger.
The 448-page Mueller Report has been
published in full, and made into a dramatic hour-and-twenty-minute stage performance adapted by a Pulitzer Prize-winning
playwright with a cast of Hollywood stars. Yawn.
Then there was the seven hours of Mueller
himself testifying before two committees of Congress and the public. Painful,
"very, very painful.”
One might expect that the Democratic
Party’s #Resistance would abandon its attempt to unseat Donald Trump through litigation,
in the face of the glaring fact that this whole Russiagate/Mueller
Investigation thing has only been of great political benefit, a “massive gift,” to Donald Trump. Seeing all
the chips flow to your opponent, you gotta know when to fold ‘em and play a new
hand.
One might think a shrewd and serious
#Resistance would perhaps switch to a strategy of frontal political assault that
highlights substantive alternatives to reactionary social and foreign policies,
where Trump is vulnerable for increasing inequality, social insecurity, and
foreign aggression. ‘Cause, you know, as Nathan Robinson puts it: “People are upset because they’re drowning
in debt, their rent is too damn high, they can’t afford their health insurance
and they are working crappy jobs,” not because Konstantin Kilimnik got some polling
data. One might think, with Robinson, that “hopefully we can put this pathetic
chapter in American politics behind us.”
One who thinks this, however, would be
underestimating the #Resistance’s capacity for self-delusion. As I put it previously, “The Mueller Investigation never
happened and will never end.” Matt Taibbi chronicles how, “in the space of a single news
cycle,” Mueller’s testimony was turned from a “disaster” by a “struggling,” “old and…often
confused” aging bureaucrat into another heroic victory for the regiments of the
#Resistance, led by Mueller, the “Trump Hunter,” a man whose “face was a portrait of
rare depth, the sort one is more likely to find on a Leonardo da Vinci canvas …[or
on] paintings of the Agony in the Garden, showing Jesus’ upturned face as he
prayed.”
Yup, having lost a big political pot with
its “Russian collusion” high card, the #Resistance Dems and media are now on full
tilt with the “obstruction of justice” hand they say Mueller Agonistes has
dealt them. Gotta love those Aces and Eights!
Thus, the pressure to go all-in with
impeachment has increased, most significantly among members of
the important House Judiciary Committee—Jamie Raskin of Maryland (“The evidence
is overwhelming: 10 different episodes of presidential obstruction of justice
and the Trump campaign’s enthusiastic embrace of the Russian attack on our
elections.” ), Pramila Jayapal from Washington State (also co-chair of the
Progressive Caucus: “this [the Mueller testimony] is a groundbreaking
moment.”], and even committee Chair Jerrold Nadler. (Though he also seems to
think the House can “lodge charges against the president without officially
opening an inquiry.”)
Joining the pack are “moderates” like
Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton, Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth of
Kentucky, Diana DeGette of Colorado, the
chief deputy whip, and Katherine M. Clark of Massachusetts, the vice chair of
the House Democratic Caucus; joining them are “progressives,” “socialists,” and
“squaddies” like Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. All told, more than 90
congresspersons now advocate beginning impeachment proceedings.
And, of course the major presidential
candidates are now on board: Warren, Harris, O’Rourke, Booker, and Sanders—though
not, it seems, Tulsi Gabbard.
Indeed, as Michael Tracey says: “being ‘progressive’ is now equated in the public mind
with advocating that the president be impeached.”
Let me count the ways this is a supremely
bad idea.
1) Donald Trump is not going to be
impeached. (And by "impeached," I mean not just “impeached by the House,” but also convicted by the Senate and removed from office by impeachment proceedings.)
It just ain’t gonna happen, and
everybody knows it. It’s not going to happen on the basis of the Mueller
investigation, the Mueller Report, the Mueller testimony, or—the latest wall
closing in—some bombshell testimony from Don
McGahn. No matter how fervently they express their sincere belief that “The
case for impeachment based on the Mueller investigation has been now publicly
crystallized and articulated” (Raskin), they—every single one of the persons
mentioned above—know very well that have not convinced even a handful of
Republican legislators of that, let alone a critical mass of the public, and
that there is zero chance of the Senate convicting and removing Trump
for anything deriving from the Mueller investigation. That includes the
“obstruction of justice” charge impeachment-hungry Democrats are trying to
convince themselves is a winner, and they know it.
As I said in a previous essay, the Democrats have #Resisted
themselves into a double-bind corner on this. Despite knowing they did not have
political strength to pull it off—either in the legislature or, more
importantly, among the population—the Democratic leadership and its media
allies strung its base along and riled them up with the prospect of removing
Trump from office via the axe of Trump-Hunter Mueller. That ploy was a
deflection from confronting precisely the Party’s own political failures, but since
so much of the Party’s base has fallen for it, and no one in the Party
leadership is willing to admit what a failure it was, that base now expects the
promised result, which is impossible to achieve.
Again, they know this. As Michigan
representative Debbie Dingell says: “I think there are pragmatic people that know [impeachment]
is not going to take us anywhere.” Indeed, per the New York Times, “The
majority of the Democratic caucus … sees [impeachment] as a politically
perilous push that would lead to an almost certain acquittal in the Senate and
further drain attention from its legislative work.” Ya think?
Donald Trump will be removed from
office one way: by an election. The Democrats have to stop imagining they can
substitute litigation for politics. In the next fifteen months, they have to drop
the irrelevant litigation strategy and wage the political fight they’ve been
avoiding for the past twenty-one months, or they’ll be watching Donald Trump’s
second inauguration for another four-year term.
The problem, of course, and one of the
horrors of the American polity, is that the political entity (can’t really call
it a “movement”) that’s assembled around the Democratic Party does not want, or
know how, to do this.
2) Impeaching Donald Trump will make
things worse.
Two words: Mike Pence.
As far as I’m concerned, for any
progressive politics, Mike Pence is a dispositive argument against impeachment.
If the Democrats were somehow successful
in removing Trump, they would have installed a president who is a much more
serious, organized, and ideologically-coherent religious proto-fascist. The
major difference is that he will not be so stupid as to waste his time on
provocative tweets. There is not the slightest reason to think any policy of a
Pence presidency would be any better, and many reasons to think all would be
worse. There is simply no progressive political point to clearing the way for
Mike Pence to become Commander-in-Chief.
Impeachment is a political act, not a
legal trial or a test of moral virtue. As Gerald Ford famously and correctly said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a
majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment
in history.”
Of course, specific, egregious crimes
or corruption may be important factors in the process. Sure, impeachment can be
used just to remove a particular person who has murdered someone in his kitchen
or taken a bribe outside of the oligarchy’s managed festival of “unlimited political bribery.” But the strong point of impeachment
is not to just change a face; it is to change the political leadership in order
to change the political project it drives.
Not only will replacing Donald Trump
with Mike Pence not improve the political leadership or political project it
drives, but the process of impeachment that will be carried out “in this given
moment” by the Democratic Party and its allied media, whether it succeeds or
fails, will itself worsen the politics of the country.
That’s because the Democrats will not
pursue impeachment in order to change the political project that Trump and
Pence and the reactionary Republican and Democratic establishments impose on
the county. It won’t be seeking to remove Trump because of his criminal and
dangerous aggressions against Syria, Venezuela, and Iran; or because of his
arming of actual Nazi fascists in Ukraine; or because he has abrogated even the
semblance of concern for international law and justice by accepting Jerusalem
as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israel’s territory and the sniper
killing of hundreds of civilian protestors as Israel’s prerogative; or because
he is exacerbating inequality and the social immiseration of American workers
with tax cuts for the rich and offensives against social programs; or because
his administration threatens freedom of speech and the press through the
prosecution of Julian Assange; or even because of the structural, programmatic
racism he oversees though racialized policing, mass incarceration, and
immigration policies.
At best, a very few of these things will
be mentioned in fervent speeches, based in the politics of nasty-vs.-nice
(which is to say, no politics at all), that renounce the nasty and racist things
Trump says about Jake Tapper and Mexicans and Baltimore. There will be many
elaborations on Lindsey Graham’s perfect description of Trump as “a race-baiting, xenophobic religious
bigot.” These will all be expressions of the personalized disgust of the man
and his repellent attitudes, which, per Lindsey, were obvious to everyone when
he was elected. (And not by “the American people,” but by the Electoral College.
The “American people” rejected him by three million votes, as we’d all have
been saying for the past three years if the Electoral College did not exist.)
But the Democrats’ official impeachment
process, for the record, will not be defined as removing a president because
he’s a racist, xenophobe, or religious bigot—characteristics that would retroactively
diss and disqualify virtually all previous presidents and, uh, Mike Pence, the
president they would be replacing him with.
No, the Democrats’ impeachment will be
based on using and extending the reactionary and diversionary framing the
Democrats have been using for the Russiagate fraud for the past two-and-a-half
years. It will center Donald Trump and Russia, with him as the evil villain who
helped the evil foreign power “attack our democracy.” It will aggressively
reinforce, as a reason to overturn an election, the hypocritical, war-mongering,
nouveau-McCarthyite, and fraudulent narrative—a narrative that’s been used to dismiss
left critiques, to promote worship of the most repressive and mendacious state
agencies, and to implicitly posit an idyllic ante-Trump America that will be
restored with his removal, while disappearing the failures of the Democratic
policies and politicians that made Trump’s election possible.
The idea that the Democrats can create
a political tide that Republican senators cannot resist, by proving “obstruction
of justice” legally and cleanly as the impeachable “high crime” in its own
right, regardless of whether there actually was any “Russian collusion,” is
another awkward delusion that no one really believes.
First of all, the criminal charge of “obstruction
of justice” is not proven, or even made, in the Mueller Report, and, despite
all the ticked boxes the Democrats produce, the legal issues involved in it are more complicated than they
suggest. In or out of office, Donald Trump will not be convicted or even
charged with obstruction of justice. And the Democrats know this.
More importantly, as Michael Tracey says:
“While the two issues are technically separable in a legalistic sense, politically speaking they are wholly inseparable. Impeachment is a political maneuver, and both offenses would inevitably get bundled into the same sprawling morass of complexity that comprises the Mueller investigation and ‘Russian interference’ writ large.”
We see this inevitable conflation in
play already, when Jamie Raskin says of the Mueller testimony: “The
evidence is overwhelming: 10 different episodes of presidential obstruction of
justice and the Trump campaign’s enthusiastic embrace of the Russian attack
on our elections. [my emphasis]”; and when Kathleen Clark says: “We
must be relentless in exposing the truth, act to protect our national security,
and ensure that every eligible American can vote without foreign
interference. [my emphasis]”
Making it worse, it will all be wrapped
in hypocritical moralizing about their constitutional duty to protect “American
democracy” that ignores not only the US’s war on democracy throughout the
world, but “our” untrustworthy, designed-for-fraud electoral system, our anti-democratic
constitutional structures like the Senate and the filibuster, which prevent any
progressive legislation, and, oh, the Electoral College—that thing that actually
allowed the guy who lost the election by three million votes to take office.
Three years the Democrats have had to confront these home-grown defects of “our
democracy,” and not word one about them. It’s all been, and will continue to
be, “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
The only political tide impeachment
will engender will be the tide of anger from Republican politicians and Trump
voters at the transparent attempt to cloak a political maneuver seeking to
reverse an electoral defeat in the language of a mission of honor to uphold criminal
law and constitutional duty. If the Democrats initiate impeachment proceedings,
they will trigger a political battle that will tear the country apart, and end
with them either a) losing, taking a big political hit, and handing Trump
another effective political weapon, or b) “winning” and giving us President Mike
Pence. And still taking a big political hit. There is no third ace that will make
it a real winning hand.
The Democrats know this, which is why
they are not going to do it. Unless the foolish “progressive” forces that the
Party has been riling up about this for three years pressure them into it. Hoisted
on its own petard, it would be.
There is no clearer example of how ridiculous
US political media is than its framing of the question of whether to start
impeachment proceedings against Trump a year before an election as an argument
between “moderates” and “progressives.” And no more unfortunate example of how pathetic
that distinction is in the Democratic Party than the fact that Nancy Pelosi
seems to be smarter on this issue than the progressive cool kids.
There is nothing the slightest bit
“progressive” that can come out of impeaching, or trying to impeach, Donald
Trump. If Democratic “progressives” and “socialists” think it would be a heroic
victory for anti-racism, they are imagining another universe. “In this given moment,” on this
political planet, with this Democratic Party, it will not and cannot be. It will be a victory for a deeply
reactionary and diversionary political paradigm—for centering politics on personality
rather than structure, for valorizing the national-security and intelligence
apparatus, for restoring the smiley face on foreign aggression, for mythologizing
“our democracy” and otherizing its critics. It will be a victory for “nothing-would-fundamentally-change” neoliberal imperialist complacency,
wrapped in moralizing anti-racist rhetoric.
Did I mention Mike Pence?
Nathan Robinson has it exactly right: “It's
time to forget the Mueller-fuelled impeachment fantasies.” It’s not going to
happen, and there is no reason for leftists to try and make it happen.
The real progressive mission is to
wage a determined political fight against the structures—including all the
political and ideological supports—of racism, capitalism, and imperialism, of
which Trump is only a particularly vulgar representative. But the Democrats are
not going to do that, either. Which is why, though they will not impeach Trump,
they will continue to dangle the shiny possibility before their enraged and
transfixed constituents—so that they will not turn their attention away from
Trump to the structural problems.
Impeachment? It’s a dead-man’s hand. Know
when to walk away.
_______________
Related articles:
Defeat or Impeach? The (Il)Logic of Impeachment, Impeachment: What Lies Beneath?
The Empire Steps Back: Trump Withdraws From Syria – Impeachment Now Possible; Investigation Nation: Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics; Be
Careful What You Ask For: Wasting Time with Manafort, Cohen, and
Russiagate
Defeat or Impeach? The (Il)Logic of Impeachment, Impeachment: What Lies Beneath?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be lightly moderated, with disfavor for personal attacks and stunning irrelevancies, and deference to the trenchant and amusing.