When people opine about the current conventional wisdom (Newsweek has a feature ... at least back when I read news magazines), it often amounts to rough guesswork. Sometimes, there is some reference to polls, but even there, we get snapshots that only tell us so much. But, a recent Washington Post poll with the subject tagline is of some passing interest.
I'm not sure how we can judge things at this point, especially since many people (including myself -- the darn thing is hundreds of pages long; plan to wait to a printed volume is available in the library) have not read the report and/or only have a limited sense of what is inside it. Time seems particularly relative during the Trump years, but the darn thing was released to the public less than a month ago. Another factor is the makeup of the sample -- over a third are self-labelled "independent" (often leaning conservative) while a shade under 30% are labelled Democrat.
If anything, this might make the results on a certain level more impressive. 37% (40% would be a safe round-off) still accept beginning impeachment proceeds, which means (since probably a few of the Democrats are wary) at least 10% who aren't "Democrats" (self-labelled, not scare quotes) still support it. I think that is a significant number at this stage. Given the negative findings (doesn't clear, lying, obstruction; not unfair by a large margin if with a major "no opinion" portion there), it is hard to see there is much of a problem with merely starting proceedings.
Preliminaries will take months, including hearings Democrats already are on record supporting. Plus, hearings are the bare minimum they are COMPELLED to do to be credible here. The overlap to me is clear. Still, "impeachment" proceedings matter. They are not merely run of the mill hearings that will receive limited attention. It is a constitutional line that might even matter in the courts when subpoenas are challenged. The poll is focused on a limited thing as well; impeachment as Dahlia Lithwick in a pre-release article and others noted could cover a helluva more ground. And, it is a statement of public principle and institutional action, one that the Republicans also will be forced to vote on. Overall, it can be seen as matter of "high alert" that is somewhat hard to quantify but matters. If Trump's own people, per the Report, said "no" to him, would impeachment really serve no practical value long term? I'm not so cynical to say "nope."
It is hard to tell how soft these numbers. But, if leadership is going to be all negative about everything, surely the opposition will grow. At some point, and at times I'm a bit disdainful at the "they are all pathetic" sentiment of some, this gets nauseating. Lead, don't follow. BTW, it is not surprising a majority says the Mueller Report doesn't change their opinion of the Administration. It largely clarifies what people already knew and those who denied the truth weren't going to be convinced too much by a group their side repeatedly tarred. The 23% number that said it made them view them worse matters though. It's a significant push.
This result can be spun to be another "Democrats in Disarray" bit and the I saw repeatedly criticism of Democrats for not moving fast enough and being hesitant on impeachment. After all, they knew it would come up; the basics of the release is not really a shock. But, at some point, that's one-sided. What about the Republicans? I guess we basically assume nothing from them so their actions (other than a few unpleased noises) are granted.
And, it is a general wrong-minded one sided view. We can't impeach! It will divide us and unite the Trumpites! We heard that about voting against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but don't think that went badly. There was even a report that the latter energized Democrats and might have pushed the needle a bit among Republican women. It also provided a response to norm violation, put the party on record in a matter of principle, wasn't a "fu" to the base and avoided the Democrats (even a few here will do it) in effect "owning" those guys. The "what is the point, they will be confirmed anyway" talk was put off as realism but really was misguided. Patronizing cynicism is at times a dubious game.
We are at a moment of crisis here and a formal start of impeachment proceedings is both the right and practical thing to do. Back in the day, I actually thought Clinton deserved to be investigated for what he was eventually impeached for though opposed removed. In hindsight, it does seem trivial, and not a national wrong meriting impeachment. At the time, it did seem wrong enough and the strong opposition to even admitting that ("just a bj") bothered me. I wanted at least a majority to vote on one count, at least to symbolically show he was wrong.
This might have been naive or whatever, but this is much much worse. It definitely warrants impeachment and the opposition from the right side is mainly prudential. He won't be removed, so what value will it be; it might even be dangerous to defeating him. I find that defeatist. I still retain a bit of my idealism though my faith in the Constitution isn't quite "whole" ala Barbara Jordan. But, it is enough to support starting impeachment hearings. A sane process would toss in some other people who would be removed and denied a chance to haunt us decades later ala Attorney General Barr in another federal office.
(A threat of impeachment of a Cabinet officer very well might be a sound idea. I don't see it happening, but it very well might go down fairly easily.)
Start the process!
I'm not sure how we can judge things at this point, especially since many people (including myself -- the darn thing is hundreds of pages long; plan to wait to a printed volume is available in the library) have not read the report and/or only have a limited sense of what is inside it. Time seems particularly relative during the Trump years, but the darn thing was released to the public less than a month ago. Another factor is the makeup of the sample -- over a third are self-labelled "independent" (often leaning conservative) while a shade under 30% are labelled Democrat.
If anything, this might make the results on a certain level more impressive. 37% (40% would be a safe round-off) still accept beginning impeachment proceeds, which means (since probably a few of the Democrats are wary) at least 10% who aren't "Democrats" (self-labelled, not scare quotes) still support it. I think that is a significant number at this stage. Given the negative findings (doesn't clear, lying, obstruction; not unfair by a large margin if with a major "no opinion" portion there), it is hard to see there is much of a problem with merely starting proceedings.
Preliminaries will take months, including hearings Democrats already are on record supporting. Plus, hearings are the bare minimum they are COMPELLED to do to be credible here. The overlap to me is clear. Still, "impeachment" proceedings matter. They are not merely run of the mill hearings that will receive limited attention. It is a constitutional line that might even matter in the courts when subpoenas are challenged. The poll is focused on a limited thing as well; impeachment as Dahlia Lithwick in a pre-release article and others noted could cover a helluva more ground. And, it is a statement of public principle and institutional action, one that the Republicans also will be forced to vote on. Overall, it can be seen as matter of "high alert" that is somewhat hard to quantify but matters. If Trump's own people, per the Report, said "no" to him, would impeachment really serve no practical value long term? I'm not so cynical to say "nope."
It is hard to tell how soft these numbers. But, if leadership is going to be all negative about everything, surely the opposition will grow. At some point, and at times I'm a bit disdainful at the "they are all pathetic" sentiment of some, this gets nauseating. Lead, don't follow. BTW, it is not surprising a majority says the Mueller Report doesn't change their opinion of the Administration. It largely clarifies what people already knew and those who denied the truth weren't going to be convinced too much by a group their side repeatedly tarred. The 23% number that said it made them view them worse matters though. It's a significant push.
This result can be spun to be another "Democrats in Disarray" bit and the I saw repeatedly criticism of Democrats for not moving fast enough and being hesitant on impeachment. After all, they knew it would come up; the basics of the release is not really a shock. But, at some point, that's one-sided. What about the Republicans? I guess we basically assume nothing from them so their actions (other than a few unpleased noises) are granted.
And, it is a general wrong-minded one sided view. We can't impeach! It will divide us and unite the Trumpites! We heard that about voting against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but don't think that went badly. There was even a report that the latter energized Democrats and might have pushed the needle a bit among Republican women. It also provided a response to norm violation, put the party on record in a matter of principle, wasn't a "fu" to the base and avoided the Democrats (even a few here will do it) in effect "owning" those guys. The "what is the point, they will be confirmed anyway" talk was put off as realism but really was misguided. Patronizing cynicism is at times a dubious game.
We are at a moment of crisis here and a formal start of impeachment proceedings is both the right and practical thing to do. Back in the day, I actually thought Clinton deserved to be investigated for what he was eventually impeached for though opposed removed. In hindsight, it does seem trivial, and not a national wrong meriting impeachment. At the time, it did seem wrong enough and the strong opposition to even admitting that ("just a bj") bothered me. I wanted at least a majority to vote on one count, at least to symbolically show he was wrong.
This might have been naive or whatever, but this is much much worse. It definitely warrants impeachment and the opposition from the right side is mainly prudential. He won't be removed, so what value will it be; it might even be dangerous to defeating him. I find that defeatist. I still retain a bit of my idealism though my faith in the Constitution isn't quite "whole" ala Barbara Jordan. But, it is enough to support starting impeachment hearings. A sane process would toss in some other people who would be removed and denied a chance to haunt us decades later ala Attorney General Barr in another federal office.
(A threat of impeachment of a Cabinet officer very well might be a sound idea. I don't see it happening, but it very well might go down fairly easily.)
Start the process!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!