As the impeachment story moves forward, evolving by the hour,
we find the arguments offered by President Trump’s defenders increasingly outlandish, less and less effective but incredibly interesting. Polls show support for impeachment and conviction
growing in the wake of Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a whistleblower complaint that produced Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that the House of Representatives had, in fact, begun an
impeachment inquiry. As the calendar turned to October, half the respondents in some polls favored Trump’s impeachment and removal from office. With the pressure ramping up, the number of Americans favoring impeachment and conviction will likely increase, not diminish.
impeachment inquiry. As the calendar turned to October, half the respondents in some polls favored Trump’s impeachment and removal from office. With the pressure ramping up, the number of Americans favoring impeachment and conviction will likely increase, not diminish.
Trump’s defenders kept spinning, despite being confronted by
reporters, talk show hosts, and others who demonstrated their infidelity to the
facts and the illogic of their conclusions. With the narrative about Trump’s
actual conduct seemingly so clear, the interesting part of the story for us
became how Trump and his people approached defending the indefensible.
Three Lines of Attack
Though Trump’s backers offered a range of reasons why Congress shouldn’t impeach him, their main
arguments fell into three broad categories: (1) Joe Biden did it too; (2) what Trump did was okay; and (3) attacks on the
whistleblower who started all this with a complaint under established whistleblower procedures. The facts support none of these approaches to Trump's defense.
Several media organizations looked into the Biden-did-it-too
claim and all turned up nothing. No evidence exists the former vice president improperly
used his office while promoting Obama administration policy. Along with European leaders, Biden advocated the
ouster of a prosecutor because of his failures in investigating corruption in that
former Soviet republic. Additionally, no evidence surfaced
that Biden exerted inappropriate influence related to the board position his son held with a Ukrainian company.
No basis exists for declaring the substance of Trump’s call to his Ukrainian counterpart
acceptable. Having already frozen U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, Trump
asked for two “favors”: (1) help with a
probe into the origins of the Mueller investigation and (2) finding dirt on Biden,
the obvious conclusion being the
Phone transcript of Trump/Ukrainian call |
release of funds dependent on performing the
favors. Anybody reading the White House-released notes of Trump’s call who won’t acknowledge
those facts illustrates the old adage about no one being blinder than one who will
not see.
Trump and his allies have railed against the whistle-blower,
demanding the person’s identity, clearly a violation of U.S. law. This nation
has had – for obvious reasons – laws protecting whistle-blowers since
the 1700s. Now is
not the time for abrogating those laws.
Why They Persist
We get Trump’s self-preservation instinct, hence his own
defense of his actions and his personal strikes at Biden and the whistle-blower.
That’s what we’d expect. Understanding why Republican members of Congress stay with Trump
will become increasingly difficult as more information comes out and as public support
for impeachment grows. Richard Nixon didn’t resign until his approval rating fell to about 25 per
cent, putting Republican members of Congress in the position of choosing
between Nixon and their own political survival. They chose at least trying to
save their own necks, though the massive GOP losses in the 1974 mid-terms
suggest only modest success in that endeavor.
What we find really intriguing is
trying to figure out why ordinary Americans buy into
arguing on Trump’s behalf.
In our discussions, we’ve suggested a number of reasons, most of them
unflattering and we realize that’s not always fair and perhaps not enlightening
either. Trump has found something in a swath of the American nation that allows
him unwavering support from a significant part of the voting public.
One can debate the size of that
swath, while recognizing its importance. Woodson, for
example, thinks its 40-45
per cent. Rob thinks the rabid Trump
base lies somewhere in the low 30s, with the rest of his approval rating coming from committed, baseline
Republicans and people who support some of his policies but won’t man the barricades for him. Henry thinks it falls somewhere in between. Since we usually
occupy space on the other side of the political divide, we need to understand the why of this.
Republicans and people who support some of his policies but won’t man the barricades for him. Henry thinks it falls somewhere in between. Since we usually
occupy space on the other side of the political divide, we need to understand the why of this.
Some of this, in all likelihood, resides in devotion to Trump’s positions on social issues
like abortion and gay rights. We know Trump supporters so invested in assuring Trump’s pursuit of an anti-abortion, anti-gay judiciary, they cannot break with him for any reason.
like abortion and gay rights. We know Trump supporters so invested in assuring Trump’s pursuit of an anti-abortion, anti-gay judiciary, they cannot break with him for any reason.
For others, we think immigration
produces the same dedication. Trump’s determination
to build a wall (or his latest scheme, construction of a moat with snakes and alligators) on the south-
ern border and his detention policies regarding immigrants generate so much popularity among some voters, they stick with him despite whatever bad act he’s committed.
ern border and his detention policies regarding immigrants generate so much popularity among some voters, they stick with him despite whatever bad act he’s committed.
Such explanations probably account
for the attitudes of many Trump defenders and they aren’t changing. We think
there are other reasons we have not, and perhaps cannot, tease out, given our
commitment to rules of reason and fact-based analysis. We can’t read documents
like the notes of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky and reach
conclusions the facts laid out in that document don’t support.
We keep searching. As long as Trump occupies the White House,
understanding the why of the Trump phenomena will remain an important job for
all who care about our politics and our democracy. Any ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment