On Impeachment
The spectacle of a second Senate impeachment trial in a year raises a number of interesting questions, and those questions touch on constitutional, political, and prudential matters alike. In the meantime, battle lines are drawn and talking points are distributed as we move toward an outcome that seems pre-determined, a sign of both the weariness of the nation toward the object of the trial and the corruption of that object’s defenders.
There are legitimate constitutional questions to be asked and answered. The matter of whether an ex-President can be impeached, tried, and barred from further federal office and emoluments was an interesting one, until the Senate voted 55-45 to answer it. Keeping in mind once again the abidingly political nature of impeachment and the wisdom of the Founders in placing it within the legislative branch, their silence on the specific matter of trying ex-Presidents provides all the room necessary to determine the answer. As both removal AND bar from further office are constitutionally designated outcomes from a guilty verdict, it follows that the inability to carry out the one does not necessarily obviate the other, and a sufficient majority of Senators agree. There being little character or morality left in the ex-President’s defenders, assertions that impeaching an ex-President are unconstitutional ignore the inconvenient fact that he was most certainly still in office when the House impeached him. Furthermore, the irony of making constitutional arguments to support a defendant who invited, incited, and directed an insurrection is not insignificant.
The constitutional basis for trying an ex-President having been established, the case for going forward begins to fray along both political and prudential lines. At least for the time being, there simply is not the kind of support in the electorate for conviction and disbarment necessary to cause GOP Senators to vote against their (loud, restive, insurrectional) base. The voting public is not as interested in the constitutional merits of the case, in that to the extent that they do understand the issue, it is that Trump is already out of office and so continuing to obsess over him makes no sense. This is an understandable impulse. Barring Trump from running seems to many either unnecessary due to their belief that he will not do so, or that if he did, he would not win. To others who are unconcerned with the disbarment aspect (and who lead natural, healthy lives free from constant consideration of national politics), the fact that Trump is largely out of the news works for them. Finally, there are the 1/3 or so of Americans who believe Trump is in the White House basement still serving as President, or that Hillary Clinton is a cannibal, or that pedophilia is the animating instinct behind left-of-center politics. These troubled people are unlikely to come around on impeachment, irrespective of the testimony of House managers and witnesses.
Whether a sufficient number of convincible people move to the “convict and bar” position will be a function of what House managers are able to discern about the behind the scenes connection between the Trump Administration and its gullible storm-troopers. It is a fact of life that an insurrection was captured on video and audio for all to see, and that the President’s role in inciting the mob was straightforward. Yet the American public remains unconvinced of the wisdom of proceeding further. For that tide to turn, new facts will have to come into evidence, facts that are so incontrovertible and so heinous as to move the needle of public opinion. This seems unlikely.
The final argument against an Impeachment trial is a prudential one, alluded to earlier. That is, the man is gone, many in the country have not heard a peep from him in weeks, the country is moving on, and all the trial does is dredge up the day to day tension and weight of Trump’s malevolent presence. Additionally, a new administration is trying to staff up and move its legislative agenda forward in an evenly divided Senate. Make a clean break of it and move on. This is an attractive position from many perspectives, including the Trump Camp, GOP legislators, and the Biden Administration. All benefit from placing this matter in the outbox.
The arguments against proceeding with this trial are not easily dismissed, but they should be dismissed nevertheless. The importance of declaring that there is no period in a President’s term in which he cannot be held accountable for his actions outweighs our nation’s weariness and/or political expedience. Are we to believe that the President is constrained by the Constitution only up until the point in time where summoning the legislature to hold him accountable is feasible before his term ends? Such an interpretation would be unwise and ultimately inconsistent with our federal system. The impeachment trial must go forward, Donald Trump should be convicted, and he should be barred from further federal service.
Immunization
The nation’s celebratory mood at the news of not one but two effective COVID immunizations being approved for use in the United States in mid-December has turned somewhat more sour six weeks later. The vaccine suppliers seem to be holding up their end of the bargain, producing and delivering in quantities desired, but the distribution and actual vaccination processes have not kept up. The federally controlled and state implemented approach is—as could be expected—working unevenly as states apply varying approaches to distribution and prioritization. The first week of the Biden Administration brought with it reports of there having been no plan in place, which certain media outlets lapped up as continuing evidence of Trump Administration failure. These reports were wrong, with even Dr. Fauci confirming that this was crass political posturing. Additionally, the incoming Biden team set a daily vaccination goal that was largely already being met, reinforcing the perception of active low expectation setting.
One important facet of the immunization/recovery plan that has the potential to blow up in the Biden Administration’s face is the linkage between vaccine distribution and schools opening. Reports of teacher’s unions demanding priority for teachers in the vaccination line, only to then state an unwillingness to work until students are inoculated, not only risks enraging frustrated parents of both parties, but appears to ignore the growing body of evidence suggesting that classrooms are not significant viral vectors. No less an authority than the CDC itself confirms this. President Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain’s recent statements supporting union positions on the matter were met with wide criticism from across the political spectrum as exemplifying constituent service over public health.
The entire concept of vaccine prioritization has become (naturally) a political football, with issues of public health and what has come to be known as “social justice” intersecting. The front of the line status for those confined to nursing homes, their care givers, and first responders seems to be widely accepted, but from there consensus frays. The relative importance of inoculating teachers, food industry workers (including farmers), smokers, those with co-morbidity, and those with a higher likelihood of spreading the disease due to age/social practices (read: “college students”) — to mention just a few of the distinctions— is a matter for differing interpretation across the country. Additionally, media covered inoculations of otherwise healthy/age inappropriate people as a means to encourage others to sign up for the shot seem to generate discontent among those prone to complain. Reports of others steadfastly refusing to be vaccinated as a political statement defy logic while fitting in nicely with our fractured civil society.
Optimism is called for though, as the system is beginning to work through initial bumps and flow challenges. Americans should not be surprised if five months from now we begin to hear of a diminishing number of vaccination sites as the general population is addressed. There is light at the end of the tunnel.