Why I now support the impeachment inquiry
NEW YORK: I have long opposed the various efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Overturning an election should be a rare event, undertaken in only the most extreme circumstances. The process would create deep wounds in an already divided nation. And, as a practical matter, since it’s highly unlikely that a Republican- controlled Senate would vote by a two-thirds majority for conviction, the political effect could well be to vindicate Trump and aid his reelection.
But the events of the last few weeks have led to me to support an impeachment inquiry. Trump’s efforts to pressure the new Ukrainian government, including his phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky, were profoundly wrong. To direct American foreign policy for personal political
power. Even many Trump defenders argue that what he did was bad but does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
What has been far more troubling is Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Other
subpoena or request for documents. Trump is effectively rejecting Congress’ ability to hold him accountable. Even his staunch defender, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, conceded that Trump’s central argument, that the congressional inquiry is unconstitutional, is nonsense. “The House can organize impeachment more or less as it wants. ... Like the president’s pardon power, the House’s impeachment power is among the least fettered in America’s founding charter.”
The rule of law has been built over centuries in the Western world, but it remains fragile because it is based on a bluff. The bluff is that, at the highest level, everyone will respect the rules even though it might not be possible always to enforce compliance.
The rule at the heart of the American system is the separation of powers. The founders’ greatest fear was that too much power in the hands of government would mean the end of liberty. So they ensured that power was shared and that each branch would act as a check on the other. The crucial feature for James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, was “giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.” As he explained in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
But the system only works if all sides respect it. At the end of the day, Congress does not have an army or police force at its disposal. Nor does the Supreme Court. These institutions rely on the president to accept their authority and enforce their laws and rulings. When the Supreme Court held unanimously that President Richard Nixon could not use “executive privilege” to withhold the Watergate tapes, Nixon immediately agreed to comply, even though he knew it would mean the end of his presidency. More recently, when Britain’s high court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament had been unlawful, he instantly explained that while he disagreed, he would respect the ruling.
All modern US presidents — both Republican and Democratic — have expanded their powers, and that expansion has been especially excessive in the past few decades. But Trump is on a different planet. He has refused to comply with wholly constitutional legislative requests for documents, information and testimony. He has diverted money toward a project clearly not funded by Congress, reportedly promised pardons for
suggested that the military shoot migrants (which is unlawful), and now doubled down on his rejection of congressional oversight over him. Were Trump’s position to prevail, the American president would become an elected dictator.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are are being politically unwise. They should ensure that this impeachment inquiry is and looks fair. They should follow the precedents laid down during the last two impeachment investigations. At the end of the day, impeachment is a political process, which means that public support is vital. The American people may be more inclined to support impeachment after the Ukraine revelations, but it remains wary. The inquiry should be undertaken as a great act of public edu
case, but also about the American system of checks and balances.
A democracy can turn into a tyranny not all at once, with a bang, but over time. Officials, often elected, often popular, can simply decide to weaken and then dispense with constitutional constraints or legislative checks. Liberty is eroded slowly but steadily. The Weimar Republic was a well- functioning liberal democracy that, within a few short years, using mostly legal processes, became a totalitarian
history, Yale’s Timothy Snyder writes, “The conclusions for conservatives of today emerge clearly: Do not break the rules that hold a republic together, because one day you will need order.”