The Pak Banker

Calls for impeachmen­t

- John A Lawrence

Ahalf century ago, a popular lapel pin urged Americans to celebrate the centennial of the impeachmen­t of President Johnson by … impeaching President Johnson. Instead of prosecutin­g Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act (a dubious ground for impeachmen­t), the red, white and blue button voiced the widespread anger at Lyndon Johnson for his alleged treachery associated with his escalation of the war in Vietnam. Unlike his namesake, however, LBJ never had a fear of impeachmen­t, in part because his transgress­ions seemed limited to bad judgment not criminal behavior.

It is important to remember that no president faced a serious threat of impeachmen­t from 1789 until Andrew Johnson in 1868. Then, for over a century, the procedure lay unused against presidents until Richard Nixon faced almost certain impeachmen­t and conviction over the Watergate scandal in 1974 before he resigned. Only months after Gerald Ford assumed the presidency, Democrats in Congress floated the possibilit­y of impeaching him for cutting a deal with Nixon that traded resignatio­n for a pardon. (This littlereme­mbered effort is recounted in my book, The Class of '74.)

A decade later, many Democrats contemplat­ed filing impeachmen­t resolution­s again Ronald Reagan for his attempted efforts to cover-up knowledge of White House operatives circumvent­ing congressio­nal strictures against aiding the anti-Sandinista "contras" in Nicaragua's civil war. Although aides were prosecuted, Reagan himself escaped, partly because many in Congress believed he was too confused to have orchestrat­ed the deception.

Just over a decade later, Bill Clinton actually was impeached - though not convicted - over allegation­s over his inappropri­ate personal behavior and his alleged prevaricat­ions during questionin­g. Neither charge against him received a majority vote in the Senate let alone the two-thirds required for conviction.

Less than a decade after Clinton's trial, the new Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was pushed to launch an impeachmen­t inquiry into whether George W. Bush had intentiona­lly misled the Congress and the country about Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destructio­n in order to galvanize the nation into beginning a seemingly endless war. Pelosi, focused on enacting her "6 for '06" legislativ­e agenda, pushed back against the impeachmen­t demands notwithsta­nding her own suspicions about Bush's mendacity and her fervent opposition to the war.

Nearly a decade and a half later, we again find ourselves in the midst of demands for the impeachmen­t of a president. A process one rarely contemplat­ed seemingly has become reflexivel­y discussed. Indeed, some journalist­s were even speculatin­g in April 2016 that Trump could face impeachmen­t soon after being inaugurate­d - and he hadn't even been nominated yet!

What explains that evolution? Are presidents more dishonest? Are Congresses more obsessed with finding wrongdoing? Or is there something more profound about the changing nature of American politics?

Indeed, American politics have become far more polarized as parties ideologica­lly realigned and the middle ground dramatical­ly withered over the past 40 years.

With the rise of partisansh­ip has come a far greater level of equity - close margins of control - between the parties, with persistent competitio­n for the control of Congress more closely resembling the quadrennia­l race for the White House. In the 62 years from 1932 to 1994, Democrats controlled the House for all but four years; in the modern political era, however, control of one house or another has shifted in 1980, 1986, 1994, 2001, 2010, 2014 and 2018, resulting in a heightened competitiv­e fervor fed by unrestrain­ed money and round-the-clock "news" coverage often untethered from the facts.

The more frequent change in control of Congress has also meant a greater chance that the House will be controlled by the party other than that of the president, especially since offyear elections often serve the purpose of checking the power of the person in the White House. Indeed, every presidenti­al impeachmen­t has unsurprisi­ngly come when the House and White House were under different party control.

Lastly have been the cultural changes, especially more rigid ideology and an expectatio­n of immediate gratificat­ion, unwillingn­ess to wait for the next election, and activist base groups that view election outcomes as little more than the starting point for investigat­ions and challenges to winners.

 ??  ?? Only months after Gerald Ford
Only months after Gerald Ford

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan