A friend of mine recently expressed his anguish about the future with the "President Elect" in office. He is (as we all should be) very stressed about the very real possibility that the combination of Trump's petulant inarticulacy and proclivity for disrespectful vulgarity toward anyone with a difference of opinion might lead to a global nuclear conflagration. He told me that he felt Donald would be impeached perhaps even before inauguration next week.
He cited (among other things) an article from the Independent which cites evidence that Trump actually worked with the Kremlin during the campaign.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-file-investigation-hacking-christopher-steele-mi6-a7526901.html
Here is my response:
I agree that it would be great if DJT could be dispensed with asap.
The problem lies in the "political nature" of impeachment.
Quoting from the the article linked to the one you provided
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-impeachment-impeached-highly-likely-us-president-elect-inauguration-us-congress-illegal-a7525761.html)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-impeachment-impeached-highly-likely-us-president-elect-inauguration-us-congress-illegal-a7525761.html)
Political science Professor Terrence Casey at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology said impeachment was undoubtedly a “political act”, necessitating a shift in public confidence.
“Impeachment means criminal offences, so in that sense it’s not about public support,” he told The Independent.
“It is also a political act. Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings could only occur because you had an opposition party in control of congress. In the case of Trump, you would have to convince a Republican congress to impeach a Republican president, which would fail if he still had public support - like it did with Clinton, and it would succeed if he didn’t - like in the case of Nixon’s resignation.”
Professor Wilson said support would be likely to waver if claims that Moscow had compromising material on the President-elect were proven to be true.
“Impeachment means criminal offences, so in that sense it’s not about public support,” he told The Independent.
“It is also a political act. Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings could only occur because you had an opposition party in control of congress. In the case of Trump, you would have to convince a Republican congress to impeach a Republican president, which would fail if he still had public support - like it did with Clinton, and it would succeed if he didn’t - like in the case of Nixon’s resignation.”
Professor Wilson said support would be likely to waver if claims that Moscow had compromising material on the President-elect were proven to be true.
As
we know, criminal offenses are not offences until proven. Bringing
charges is also very political, which Trump supporters know too well.
Whether criminal or impeachment proceedings or other, it all hinges on
"proven to
be true." Trump supporters think that truth is hard to find because the
media, journalism and the "establishment" all have the prefix "liberal"
or "swamp" in front of them.
Thus,
it is impossible to "prove" anything to them that they do not agree
with. Whatever they do not want to hear is a concoction of the
"establishment" meant to maintain vested political interests.
So,
the only way Trump will go down is if there is a ground swell of
popular political support for his removal. The election indicated less
than a majority for DJT but, the ground swell "majority" would have to
be much more than marginal to have this take place.
Lets
say it rose to 70% of the population (that politicians were capable of
discerning), this would still leave a VERY ANGRY 30% who would maintain
the belief that everything is false except what they are willing to
believe. This would in turn create an even more divisive political
landscape into which the next potential candidate would have to forge.
Bernie Sanders might be the only one who could weather such a hostile
world but at that point he would be up against HUGE economic interests
(the 1% that owns 90% of US wealth) that would want to derail him.
Given
the enormous complexity of the situation and the fact that DJT
supporters (and, indeed, a substantial portion of the US population) is
impervious to effects evidence might have on their understanding of the world (as
Winston Churchill said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and
won't change the subject"), I don't see a resolution to this any time
soon.
A positive angle on all this is that "the will of the people" seems to remain at least somewhat influential at least in the possible success of impeachment proceedings. But then, the "will of the people" may not have been terribly influential in the college electoral system, since Trump had 2.86 million fewer votes than his opponent.
A positive angle on all this is that "the will of the people" seems to remain at least somewhat influential at least in the possible success of impeachment proceedings. But then, the "will of the people" may not have been terribly influential in the college electoral system, since Trump had 2.86 million fewer votes than his opponent.
No comments:
Post a Comment