A better election is the antidote to a bad one — not impeachment

WASHINGTON >> If Donald Trump were to tweet that 9 is a prime number, Minneapolis is in Idaho, and the sun revolves around the Earth — “Make Earth Great Again!” — would even five Republican senators publicly disagree? This matters in assessing the wisdom of beginning an impeachment process against the president. If every senator in the Democratic caucus were to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial concerning articles voted by the House, 20 Republicans would have to join them to remove him from office.

What, then, can be accomplished by the impeachment inquiry announced just 406 days before the next presidential election? Three things.

First, it would augment the public’s knowledge of useful information to make Senate Republicans stop silently squirming and start taking audible responsibility for a president they evidently think they must enable.

Second, it would affirm Congress’ primacy.

We’ve heard too many defensive assertions that Congress is “co-equal” with the executive and judicial branches. It’s more than that. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Jay Cost notes, Congress is involved in the other branches’ actions by determining the size and scope of the other branches. (All federal courts other than the Supreme Court, and every executive department and officer except the president and vice president, are Congress’ creations.) And by confirming or rejecting nominees to executive and judicial positions. And by stipulating those nominees’ salaries. And by overriding presidential vetoes. And by exercising the power — unused since June 4, 1942 — to declare war. And by ratifying or rejecting treaties, and shaping the military’s size and mission. And by initiating constitutional amendments. As Cost says, the other branches are largely incapable of interfering with Congress, which sets its own pay and rules. Yet today’s Republican-controlled Senate, Trump’s sock puppet, won’t consider legislation he disapproves of — as though the Senate expressing its own judgment about the public good is lèsemajesté.

Third, articles of impeachment might concern his general stonewalling of congressional inquiries. This obduracy vitiates Congress’ role in the system of checks and balances,

one purpose of which is to restrain rampant presidents. An impeachment proceeding could strengthen Congress’ atrophied institutional muscles.

These three benefits from impeachment wouldn’t be trivial. But they probably aren’t worth the costs in time, energy and political distraction. Because, regardless of the evidence presented, there’s approximately zero chance of an anti-trump insurrection by 20 of his vigorously obedient Senate Republicans. So, a Senate trial might seem, to the public, yet another episode of mere gesture politics, of which there currently is too much. And it may further inflame the president’s supporters.

As I’ve argued (May 31), impeachment can be retrospective, as punishment for offenses committed, and prospective, to prevent probable future injuries to society. The latter is problematic regarding Trump: What’s known about his Ukraine involvement reveals nothing — nothing — about his character or modus vivendi not already known. It’s unfortunate but undeniable: Many millions voted for him because he promised that the loutishness of his campaigning foreshadowed his governing style.

Assumption College’s Greg Weiner understands what he calls “the politics of prudence,” and this truth: “That an offense is impeachable does not mean it warrants impeachment.” Impeachment is unwarranted, for example, if the reasonable judgment of seasoned political people is that impeachment might enhance the political strength and longevity of the official whose behavior merits impeachment.

This might be a moment in this nation’s life when worse is better: The squalor of the president’s behavior regarding Ukraine, following so much other repulsive behavior, is giving many Americans second thoughts about presidential power, which has waxed as Congress has allowed, often eagerly, its power to wane. Impeachment, however dubious, might at least be a leading indicator of an overdue recalibration of our institutional equilibrium.

Nevertheless, the best antidote for a bad election is a better election. The election the nation needs in 400 days would remove the nation’s most recent mistake and inflict instructive carnage — the incumbent mistake likes this noun — on his abjectly obedient party.

George Will is a Washington Post columnist.