IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT: FOR WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO RECEIVE

Now that the House Judiciary Committee has

approved two impeachment articles against President Trump, and a vote in the full House of Representatives impeaching him appears inevitable,  we ask, “What’s next?” The easy answer –  trial in the  Republican-controlled U.S. Senate –  only partly tells the story.

Impeachment could impact the 2020 election (or not). Americans may long debate this impeachment (or not). This might represent a watershed moment in American politics (or not). We find looking at the possibilities more intriguing than reviewing the tedious judiciary committee debate that brought us to this point.

Impeachment and the Election

Many Democrats who can’t stand Trump resisted impeachment as long as they did because they saw it negatively affecting the party’s 2020 chances. This theory found support in public reaction after Attorney General William Barr

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

exonerated  Trump upon release of the Mueller Report. Barr mischaracterized the Special Counsel’s work, something a lot of people now understand, but he set the narrative for a good while. In the short term, Barr’s bad faith spin doctoring set up Trump for spiking the ball and dancing in the end zone, proclaiming, “No collusion. No obstruction.” It seemed a Senate vote acquitting Trump after impeachment in the House might produce a repeat and give him big advantages next November.

Continuing the football analogy, upon further review, history doesn’t necessarily support that idea. Bill Clinton’s highest approval ratings followed acquittal in his impeachment trial but, arguably, Clinton'simpeachment fueled George W. Bush’s victory over Al Gore in 2000. At the

very least, it provided Bush a ready-made slogan about “restoring dignity” in the Oval Office, a thinly disguised shot at Clinton for having sexual relations with an intern in that very office.

Oval Office

The impeachment articles against Trump don’t accuse him of sexual misconduct, but the overwhelming evidence of his malfeasance in connection with Ukraine lets the attack ads write themselves. Arguments Republicans make in defending him are as flimsy as crepe paper in a hurricane. Trump should survive the Senate trial because enough GOP senators won’t defect. The American people may well play the role of referee and throw a flag for excessive celebration. In truth, only those long bamboozled by Trump’s act will see acquittal as a reason for voting for him. Impeachment, therefore, may not much affect the election after all.

The Debate

Many words got thrown around in the seemingly endless judiciary committee impeachment debate. We lived through the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. This seemed different and not in a good way. The result, both in the House and Senate appears so baked in, even political junkies might ask, “Why bother?”

House Democrats answer with the irrefutable contention that they couldn’t avoid impeaching Trump and still claim they’re protecting and defending the constitution, as their oaths require. Being lawyers, we get that.  Still, we all know how this movie ends. In the absence of an astounding

development none of us foresee, the House will impeach Trump on a party line vote with defections by four or five Democrats from districts Trump won, the Senate will acquit him with the only mystery being how many Republicans defect. The betting will center on whether a majority of senators vote for conviction, a possibility, given vulnerable GOP incumbents like Maine’s Susan Collins and Colorado’s Cory Gardner and Trump skeptics like Utah’s Mitt Romney who may join Democrats in voting for removal.

 

We fear this impeachment saga will not produce memorable moments. We won’t see brave, principled House Republicans bucking their party and voting for impeachment as seven did against

Nixon in 1974. Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan isn’t around, proclaiming her faith in the  constitution, despite its initial mal-treatment of her racial ancestors. In a few months, post impeachment political discourse probably sounds much like pre-impeachment political discourse.

 

An Impeachment Legacy? What Legacy?

                 

Trump, like Clinton, like Nixon, and like Andrew Johnson will now have impeachment in the first

paragraph of his obituary. But, with a president who has lied as much and committed as many offenses, many of them criminal, how much difference does that make? Is this a watershed moment in American politics or something else?

 

We can offer one unpleasant possibility. The legacy of the Trump impeachment may lie in the fact our hyper partisan politics means the nation can now never remove a president from office, no matter what that president does wrong. Republican support for Trump, in the face of overwhelming evidence of his corrupt conduct, suggests we’re stuck with misbehaving chief executives, no matter their sins. Democrats say they’d behave differently with the shoe on the other foot, but are we sure?

Unless the opposition party holds 60 plus Senate seats, an improbability if not an impossibility, no

president gets removed. It won’t happen unless the country so turns against the president, senators of that president’s party believe they will pay a higher political price for loyalty than turning the other way.

 

This situation, therefore, presents troubling questions for American democracy. Have we reached a point at which only elections can remove renegade presidents? Can a president with a loyal, dedicated base really shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York and get away with it? Do people so badly want their guy or gal in office that nothing else matters? Perhaps that’s this impeachment’s legacy, a discomforting thought, but maybe where we are.         

Parenting 102: More Advice on Parenting or The Legacy We Can Leave Our Children

We wrote last time about leaving a “legacy” for our children and grandchildren, a capstone on our look at parenting.  Woodson detailed his desire to bequeath to his offspring a legacy of “character” and “financial freedom.”  Now, Rob and Henry weigh in.  Both view the issue differently from Woodson and from each other.  Still, we see commonality in our three approaches to this concept.  Judge for yourself the particulars.

Rob’s Thoughts  Woodson’s insistence on leaving a “legacy” for his children forced me to think about what I will leave mine.  I find his “character” and “financial freedom” objectives laudable goals.  I don’t use the same words, but I see similarities in what I want to leave my children and what he seeks to leave his.

I look at this issue along an intangibles-to-tangibles continuum. What intangible qualities and attributes did I try to instill and what real assets can I leave?  I’ve tried to give my children a lengthy list of intangibles, but much work remains on the tangible part.

I have five children from two marriages.  At the intangible end of the spectrum, my wives and I sought to provide our children experiences and education that promoted good judgment, developed analytical and  problem solving capacity, taught writing, speaking, and computational skills permitting high level professional performance, and inspired intellectual curiosity leading to freedom of thought. We also tried to inculcate moral, ethical, and spiritual values that enhance justice and equality in a free society.

My wives and I devoted substantial time and treasure to these objectives. We spent significantly on travel, sports experiences, books, cultural activities, and, of course, formal education.  Each child earned a degree from a reputable university.  With considerable evidence now in, it appears we succeeded.  All five demonstrate, at some level of competence, the listed skills and generally adhere to the values we promoted.  It seems I am leaving my children a meaningful legacy of intangibles.

The tangible side of the ledger is another matter. Given where I started in life economically – no real wealth, just an ability to earn a good income – leaving a financial legacy of real assets required a level of saving and investment success I never achieved. In truth, I have little wealth to leave my children. The money got spent giving them the experiences and education needed to acquire the intangibles.  I sometimes regret spending, saving, and investment decisions I made that, if decided differently, would likely have changed this situation.

Woodson reminded me the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.  He’s pointed out that I retain an ability to acquire financial assets I can leave my children.  Time will tell if he’s correct, but his assessment offers hope and a reason to keep working.  I have, in fact, heard many stories of people achieving late life economic success. Because opportunity remains, I get up every day and keep trying.   

Henry’s Thoughts  The consideration of a gift to leave my children and grandchildren leads to an intense examination of what I value most.

I believe I have moved toward recognizing the beauty and glory of existence in this world and the beauty and glory of this world accompanied by an appreciation and gratefulness for this recognition.

Because we perceive life as so short and fleeting we seem to look toward what lies ahead and spend time preparing for where we wish we were. We always seek a better place--we crave what we do not have.

I believe we can push and plan for a better world while appreciating and enjoying the present--valuing each breath and what it brings. I believe this leads to appreciating each life on earth and working every day in whatever big or small way to enhance the lives of others, even if only to make one individual smile.

Overwhelmingly wonderful peace can come from these realizations. I would like to leave my children a path toward this peace.

It may lead to an "ordinary" life as some see it, or to fame and fortune, but to exist without regret and at peace with that existence could represent the ultimate life can offer. I wish to leave my offspring a legacy of daily life that causes them to examine this path. I suppose I want to leave them balance.

COLLECTIVELY SPEAKING   Our three approaches to legacy offer a window into the practical and the ideal on parenting.  All of us want to leave our children something practical (i.e., “financial freedom”) and something that addresses higher ordered needs and dreams (i.e., “intellectual curiosity”).  But, because we see the value in both, Henry’s concept of “balance” ultimately could serve as a touchstone for what we want to leave our children.  They will lead better lives if we can leave them both the practical and the ideal.

YOUR TURN!