Yes, President Trump can (and deserves to be) Impeached for What He Did and Said

 Sand for your Oyster--Impeachment for Dangerous Rhetoric

For those who think Congress shouldn't be trying to impeach the President just for calling a mob to Washington and then encouraging them to march on Congress which was fulfilling its constitutional duties, here is Article 10 of the impeachment articles Congress passed in 1868 against the first President who was impeached--Andrew Johnson.

The bottom line is that Congress has the authority (and I think the duty) to impeach any president they find to be dangerous to the constitutional order. Trump's undermining of the public's belief in legitimate electoral processes, his attempt to get his Vice President to act against the Constitution, his attempt to threaten the officer of a state to change the election outcome, his intemperate rhetoric and calling a mob to come to Congress to build pressure against them fulfilling their constitutional duties all easily make the bar our Founders would have set for an impeachment.

 

ARTICLE 10. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say: 

Sporran Episode 5--Cricket

Prudence--Let's find that virtue again!

Prudence

Well, we can’t (and shouldn’t) change the constitutional order anytime soon. That order produced a Donald Trump presidency, a moderately conservative Senate, and a liberal House of Representatives. None of them can or should act alone. Our only hope in the immediate future is to adjust our expectations along the lines once considered a virtue in politics, particularly conservative politics—prudence. 

Prudence means that we see the political order for what it is and what is actually possible. We look to the long-term health of the nation and the common good of our people, and seek to promote it within the actual possibilities of the moment within which we live and act. Our political leaders would benefit from a healthy dose of prudence that would allow them to work together, both sides willing to listen and compromise for the common good. 

Read my full article on government shutdowns, political divisions, deliberation, compromise, prudence here.

Yes Ideas DO Have Consequences--Read it!

Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences is a classic worth reading in the 21st century. Read my full essay on the book here, but below are some of his solutions--you know the problems!

 

Solutions

Weaver’s book is broken into two parts—the first tracing the history of the decline of the West due to the ideas spun off from the original attack on universal truths, and the second providing some idea of a means toward the restoration of order. 

How might we begin to undo the damage? First, by defending the individual’s right to private property, because in holding to his or her own property, a person may find some means of defending his or her privacy, fighting for truth, and may find some refuge from an encroaching state. In other words, property gives us a place from which we may take a stand.  

Second, he argues, we must reclaim language from those who have reduced it to sentiments, twisted it for political usage, and scrubbed it of common meaning with which we can seek truth and discuss our differences. 

Third, to counter the selfish egoism of modern man, we must return to a state of piety—piety toward nature, toward our neighbors, and toward the past. There is much wisdom for modern America to be found in Weaver’s diagnosis and in his prescriptions. 

Beyond the specifics of this important and challenging work, Weaver’s title reminds us that ideas can be powerful things to toy with—as likely to bring great damage as to serve progress. 

Whether or not we read Weaver’s great work again in the 21st century (and we would profit from it), we should at least use it to encourage us all to think—seriously think—about the potential consequences of new ideas, and to think about them, not only through the lens of temporary politics and our own emotions, but in terms of the long-term health of civilization itself. 

The events of the 20th century should ever remind us all of how close to the edge civilization resides and how consequential bad ideas can be.

Martin Luther King and Natural Law

Our educators and much of society have fallen into a subjectivism, where each culture, each group, each individual is to decide for themselves what they “feel” to be right and what is wrong, and is free to act accordingly. This subjectivism, King’s lessons would teach us, leaves us relatively powerless to fight truly immoral laws. If all is subjective, then no laws are truly unjust. Or, perhaps it’s better said that, if all is subjective, all laws are unjust to someone. Neither formula would support true freedom under the rule of law.

Read my full article on Martin Luther King and Natural Law

Re-reading Independence for July 4

Here are some thoughts on my article today on the Declaration of Independence. See full article here

First, we should remember what a bold and decisive stroke the Continental Congress executed by declaring our independence. They were committing treason. They were seceding from the country that had birthed them, protected them, and to whom they were pledged. We celebrate the document, but no matter what the document ended up saying, it was the act of declaring their independence that could get them hanged, and their homes confiscated or destroyed, leaving their families desperate. Still, they boldly declared they were independent.

Second, we should remember that these men weren’t actually “revolutionaries” in any modern sense; their “revolution” was really a secession. They were declaring themselves independent of the mother country, they weren’t attempting to overthrow the social institutions, economy, or religious establishment. They simply wanted to be free to govern themselves and let England govern itself as it pleased.

These men were conservative secessionists, in other words, not radical social reformers. Prudence, as political theorist Russell Kirk often said, is the great conservative virtue, and they demonstrated it: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. … But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them, under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” It would be hard to put the conservative vision for prudential change much better.

Third, there is much more to the Declaration than the famed second sentence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Remembering the evils of socialism/ communism

The Cold War came to an end more than a quarter-century ago. When the winds of change started to blow in the eastern bloc, and then the Berlin Wall finally came down, many of us wondered what the future would bring.

I remember in the summer of 1990 driving through the Shenandoah River Valley of Virginia with a veteran leader of the anti-communist movement and talking about what life would be like without the Soviet menace dominating our foreign policy.

“Will we forget what they were like, and will it be easier to bring socialism to America after the Soviet Union is gone because we have forgotten?” I asked. He agreed that this would be a great danger—America might forget the horrors of socialism when it was no longer an armed doctrine threatening our very existence.

Evidence that much of America has forgotten the horrors of socialism in the 20th century seems to be emerging on college campuses and among the citizenry. While those of us who grew up during the Cold War will find it shockingly hard to believe, socialism is growing as an approved political/economic system in America.

Read my full article on re-reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Abraham Lincoln on our Internal Divisions

On this July 4th, Revisit Lincoln's Lyceum Address

This is Lincoln as a 20-something with the wisdom of the ancients and profound messages for us today!

Lincoln began by expressing gratitude to our ancestors who founded and built our nation. Demonstrating conservatism at its very best, he connected the generations of the living, dead, and yet unborn in a community of mutual obligation. It is our task, Lincoln said of the living, to protect and then pass on to posterity what we have inherited.

Where, Lincoln asked, will the threat to our inheritance and our survival as a nation come from? Will it come from an army overseas? Profoundly not, Lincoln asserted. No military force could “take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.” The great danger to the United States will come from inside America, he said. “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

What are the dangers Lincoln saw that may come to undermine the United States? He warned first of the “mobocratic spirit”—“the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of the Courts.”
When I recently discussed this text with students, many of them immediately saw parallels with today’s “social media mobs” passionately denouncing those with whom they disagree or sentencing people for perceived crimes of political incorrectness. To counter this spirit of the mob, Lincoln taught a strict dedication to the Constitution and the rule of law, going so far as to say that everyone must remember that “to violate the law, is to trample the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty.”

Second, he warned in very stark terms of the dangers of political leadership. Rather than celebrating great leaders who would come in the United States, he feared that men would arise with grand ambitions to be satisfied. Where our founders were able to satisfy their ambitions by founding the United States, he feared future leaders, having inherited America already built, would seek to gain their own fame in destruction and rebuilding. Those who scorn “to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious,” he said, belonged to “the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle.”

Read my full article here.

Yes, George Washington warned us of the politics surrounding the Mueller Report more than two centuries ago!

Read the full story here.

He warned us against permanent alliances and the need for impartial commercial relationships with foreign nations. And, as if speaking directly to the daily headlines of 2019, warned that against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence … the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Those most actively supporting the Mueller investigation might find support in that warning. But, he added a caveat that we all should pay close attention to: “But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial,” he instructed, “else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.”

Washington predicted that foreign governments would use the political party system that might develop in the United States as a means of sowing division and gaining favor. But he also understood that there was an equally bad tendency of people to use such concerns for their own partisan agenda rather than for the good of the whole.

How prescient Washington’s Farewell Address seems to still be today, more than two centuries after it was offered to the American people. If we would return to it again on the day of his birth and meditate on his many lessons for the United States, we might end up being a better nation able to manage our journey together through the choppy waters of the 21st century.

Its time to revisit Russell Kirk!

At no time in American history have there been more voices overtly identifying as “conservative” in politics and the media. From newspapers and journals to websites, blogs, a cable news network, and talk radio, voices claiming the mantle of conservatism are everywhere.

Virtually no Republican politician would claim to be anything else, and right-leaning think tanks abound. We are, by almost all outward measures, at the high point of conservative political success.
And yet, what it means to be a “conservative” may be less clear than at any time since the Great Depression. Is it “conservative” to cut taxes, or is the “conservative” policy to reduce the debt we are saddling future generations with? Is the “conservative” policy to promote free and open trade, or is it to raise tariffs to protect domestic industries? Is it conservative to “conserve” the environment, or is it always “conservative” to limit the scope of government regulations? Is it the “conservative’s” primary responsibility to achieve policy victories through any means necessary, or to preserve the institutional arrangements of the constitutional order, even if it means losing some policy battles along the way?

Add to that the fact that despite having so many political outlets, most conservatives feel their country is pulling apart and their culture is disintegrating. How can all these facts be true—that conservatism is at its height, but there is less agreement on what conservatism is, and conservatives have the feeling they are losing the great battles for the future?

In this confusing time, conservatives would do well to revisit the foundations of their modern movement in the great intellectual battles of the mid-20th century. Long before Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh, and before Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater bestrode our politics, several great public thinkers were preparing the culture with the books and journals from which would spring a revolution.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of one of the most important of those writers and offers a chance to consider his lessons for America today.

See my full column on why we need to read Russell Kirk today here.

Nevada was on the brink of irrelevancy--but a late veto today saved it!

My article ran today in The Hill, the same day the Democrat Governor of Nevada decided to veto the National Popular Vote legislation sent to him! Well done, Governor!

Here is an excerpt from my article in The Hill:

The election in Nevada in 2016, in fact, is a good microcosm of what will happen to Nevada and other small and rural states if he NPV compact succeeds. Clinton did not win Nevada by traveling the state and appealing to a wide swath of the population. She won Nevada by winning a massive majority in just one county (and a slight plurality in one other). Where Clinton won the whole state by just 27,000 votes, she won more than 82,000 votes more than Trump simply in the county containing Las Vegas, and thereby won the state.

If those supporting the National Popular Vote initiative succeed, they will make all small and rural states like Nevada irrelevant in our national presidential conversation. In making these voters irrelevant, they also will be radicalizing our politics by centering ever more power in major urban centers, which already contribute most of the money fueling our campaigns and the media reporting on them.

And all this is happening within state legislatures without a serious national conversation that an actual amendment to the Constitution would demand — one that which our republic deserves.

A Cultural Statute of LImitations?

Not many of us would want to be judged today by what we were like at 17, but most of us are not accused of great career-ending mistakes, either. Perhaps a wider conversation now might also help us instruct and preserve our young people who are living through the most filmed, photographed, and preserved age in human history. Forty years from now, we will count on them to lead, and will need them to be able to do so.

Recently I was thinking of all the people embroiled in scandals over things they may have done decades ago. I wanted to contribute to our conversation without weighing on in the merits of any of the charges or individuals. You can read the piece here.

Of Social Media, Humility and Toolsheds

To the degree that social media encourages us to look at others and treat that perspective as the only one to be considered, it has contributed to the breaking of our politics. We must, as Lewis said, “on the pain of idiocy,” deny that “looking at” is intrinsically more true or better than “looking along.” Today, we must also deny that “tweeting at” is the equivalent of dialogue, discussion, or understanding.

If we are to repair the worst aspects of today’s social-media politics, we should start by not just looking at others but attempting to look along their experiences as well. That requires us to do the harder work of taking ideas seriously and treating the experience, values, and beliefs of others as being worthy of actual consideration and respect, rather than reflexively dismissing them with jargon-laced hostility or the dismissive shrug.

These are the last lines from a recent Op Ed I offered riffing on C. S. Lewis' magnificent "Meditations in a Toolshed." You can read the rest of the article here.

Boethius on Seeking Pleasure

From one of the poems in Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy

'All pleasures take this road:
Those who indulge they goad.
Then, like the bees that swarm,
Having yielded honey's charm,
They flee; but on the heart
A lasting sting impart.'

Beware that lasting sting when you reach for that honey, people!

Change and Tradition

I have been thinking about change and the incredibly rapid change we experience in the 21st century--no humans ever experienced change of the speed and import we endure as a regular course of existence. Here is the end of a piece I wrote on it recently. Read the rest here.

 An Anchor of Tradition

Tradition, though under attack almost everywhere, may be our only means of finding a rudder with which to guide ourselves through these times of change. To bring balance to our lives, we must hold on to traditions that have stood the test of time or restart some anew. We must have places in our lives that aren’t subject to constant disruption and changing fads.

These might be carving out quiet times more in line with the pace at which our ancestors lived their best days, unencumbered by technological distraction. These might be church services and the inherited religious teachings that sustained our forebears. These might be ditching the latest self-help book and picking up a great text that helped build men and women of character for generations. These might be teaching our children about the great men and women of the past who built our civilization, while all around us the snobbery of the current age tears it down.

If we are to regain balanced, ordered, and grounded lives, we must find some places of refuge from constant change. Doing so will require two great virtues that seem sorely lacking today—humility and courage.

We must have the humility to give some benefit of the doubt to inherited traditions, understandings, and ideas. And we must have the courage to stand firm in their defense, when others would rip them down or just toss them aside for the sake of convenience, self-expression, or enhanced entertainment.
Change is inevitable and often healthy. But it’s up to us whether we will manage our own lives through the change swirling around us, or if we will be managed by it.

I'm Baaaacckkkkk. . .

Though I don't think anyone has really missed me out there and I have been publishing in other venues, its time to come back to the Remnants of Imagination and share some thoughts, ideas, projects, images. So, here is a warning that I am coming back and might have something to say--starting with some things I have already said but I never put up here. So I will share some other pieces as I start thinking afresh.

I hope I have something to say worth thinking about every now and then!

Democracy's Seed of Death?

Democracy's "Seed of Death"

I recently had the chance to take some of our Tocqueville programming on the road to share it with students at Davis and Elkins College in Elkins, WV. For them, I chose to discuss the following quotation which comes from Volume I of Democracy in America (and which we will be discussing Monday night with Dr. Farrier, I assume).

"Every government carries within itself a natural vice that seems attached to the very principle of its life; the genius of the law-maker is to discern this well. . . every law whose effect is to develop this seed of death cannot miss becoming fatal in the long run, even if its bad effects do not immediately make themselves felt" (227-228).

Tocqueville helps us understand this by talking about an absolute monarchy and how its irrational tendency is to drive ever more power into the central office of the monarch until it eventually destroys itself.

What is this "seed of death" for democracy? Why, it is, of course, the tendency to drive more and more power into the hands of the people.  

Tocqueville praises our American founders for understanding this and putting in place institutions that could resist this destructive tendency. They gave us an unelected Supreme Court, an Electoral College (a real one, not what we have today), Senators chosen by state legislatures, federalism and equality of the states, a written Constitution with a specified amendment process that insisted on changes going through institutions in a specified manner.

The progressives told us the cure for the ills of democracy was more democracy. They got many of the reforms that they wanted.  Tocqueville tells us more democracy will destroy democracy.  Which is it?

Juries as Schools for Liberty?

Tocqueville Question of the Day--Juries as Schools for Free Citizens

Juries: "one of the most effective means that a society can use for the education of the people" (448).

How many of you have tried to get out of jury duty? You might rethink that after reading Tocqueville, pages 442-450. Indeed, you might just go volunteer!

If asked about the importance of juries, I think most of us would focus on the rights of the accused and maybe as a protection for us all against arbitrary government decisions. Tocqueville, on the other hand, makes some quite extraordinary assertions that place the institution of the jury near the very core of what makes American democracy work.

He argues that it helps us put on the "mind of the judge" which is the kind of habit that best prepares us to be free. We learn respect for "the idea of right" and learn "the practice of equity." He argues that it teaches us not to retreat from responsibility for our own actions, which he calls a "manly disposition" essential to political virtue. It teaches us our duties to society and combats the "individual egoism" that he calls "the rust of societies."  

In Tocqueville's understanding, this seemingly minor judicial institution becomes "a free school" for the instruction of citizens and free peoples. "I think that the practical intelligence and good political sense of the Americans must be attributed principally to the long use that they have made of the jury in civil matters," Tocqueville argues.  And he concludes, "Thus the jury, which is the most energetic means to make the people rule, is also the most effective means to teach them to rule."

If Tocqueville is right, our challenge, it seems to me, is to find ways to make MORE use of the jury system. If jury trials are a key way of educating our citizens, then we need more opportunities for more citizens to serve and hence to be educated in the dispositions necessary for liberty. 

Teachers: I wonder if you might be moved to try to work jury trials into your curriculum? Has anyone tried that? What do you think of such an exercise? Is there anyone out there with a curriculum using juries? Maybe it is something some center dedicated to civic education might develop if there is a need.

I have long hoped to be called for jury duty. I hope for it even more now that I see how much Tocqueville values the institution. I am eager to participate and test his ideas.  Also interested in hearing from any of you who have served on juries or who have thoughts about Tocqueville's understanding of them.

Tocquevillian Thought of the Day--Local Authority and Fracking

Local Authority, the Nurturing of Citizens, and Hydraulic Fracturing

by

Gary L. Gregg, Ph.D.

I just returned from a terrific visit to my homeland of southwestern Pennsylvania, one of the nation's hotbed areas for hydraulic fracturing.  Recent news out of Pennsylvania has a distinctly Tocquevillian tone, I think, so I decided to share it.

This is not a blog either defending or attacking the extraction of natural gas through the method of fracking. This is a note about local authority and the nurturing of citizenship.

Last winter the centralized government of Pennsylvania decided that zoning for fracking was too important to be left to local authorities and wiped out the right of local areas to create their own zoning laws when it comes to this practice.  A Commonwealth Court overturned this "Act 13" recently, though the Governor has vowed that he will appeal that decision.  The state, and the industry, argue for the need for centralized and uniform regulations. The Court argued that to allow the state to intervene in such a zoning issue will effectively eliminate all restraints on state power over such traditionally local decisions.


What would Tocqueville have to say?

Tocqueville argued very strongly that vibrant local authority was s key to the preservation of American liberty.  His history shows American society growing up and out from the local authority rather than being handed down from a centralized government. This "direction" in his history/ sociology is very important and contains numerous policy and philosophical implications that I don't have time for here.

But he goes even further. He argues that it is in local politics, towns in particular, that free people learn how to be free. "Town institutions are to liberty," he says, "what primary schools are to knowledge; they put it within the grasp of the people; they give them a taste of its peaceful practice and accustom them to its use" (102).  Summarizing his ideas he says it is in such local institutions where the American "gathers clear and practical ideas about the nature of his duties as well as the extent of his rights" (114).

Again, this note is not about fracking or economics and related questions can be debated. But, Tocqueville, I think, teaches that in terms of nurturing citizens and preparing them for liberty, the right decision is to leave such decisions to the local authorities. If local governments don't have power over such important things as what types of businesses will be permitted in their community and what type of environmental damage might be prohibited, what would encourage citizens to be engaged? Why would the best in our communities want to run for office or show up at town hall meetings if they could only influence the leash laws or garbage routes?

Whatever its other merits, it seems to me the Court's decision was the right one from the Tocquevillian perspective and the state of Pennsylvania is thinking more about economics and jobs than it is about citizens and liberty. If you had to choose, would you choose to have more jobs or to have more informed, engaged, and empowered citizens who know their duties and their rights? Which would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson prefer?

Tocqueville's Question of the Day--Presidential Elections: Agitation and Reelection

Question of the Day--Presidential Elections

Today Tocqueville helped me think through presidential elections a bit and come to think about how much we take them for granted. Unlike us, he considers elections to be times of great crisis in a democratic nation. The public gets engaged against one another. Rather than working together, the forces of society are locked in battle. We have come to expect a perfectly peaceful resolution of such internal political wars, but Tocqueville helps remind us how unique the American experience was in the history of politics and helps us think about how unique it still is today. We should give some thought to what it is (culture, tradition, values?) that keeps blood from running in the streets after an election--even a contentious one like 2000!

 In America of the 1830's, Tocqueville saw a country that was incredibly mobilized for battle every four years. And yet, he marveled that the American people became so agitated at elections when the presidents of this whig period of American history were so relatively powerless.  They had few unilateral powers, played a small role in domestic political life, and had very few patronage positions to spread around. 

Fast forward to the modern presidency where the executive branch is comprised of hundreds of thousands of employees, the president is Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force ever assembled in human history, and where we have centralized vast unilateral power in the White House. Are the American people more drawn to politics and elections since the stakes are so dramatically higher than they were 170 years ago? If not, does it say anything about our character? Is it, maybe, a part of our political stability that so many of us are not much engaged in political life?

On a related point, Tocqueville makes an interesting observation about the impact of presidents running for re-election. He says that allowing presidents to run for re-election will make them "only a docile instrument in the hands of the majority. He loves what it loves, hates what it hates; he flies ahead of its will, anticipates its complaints, bends before its slightest desires. The law-makers (founders) wanted him to lead the majority, and he follows it" (229). This is particularly a problem during the last year of a president's term, Tocqueville says, and especially in an age where political morality had become lax (which he saw happening in America in the 1830s, btw).

Do you think our prohibition on third terms has satisfied Tocqueville's concern? Have our presidents become less subservient to the public mood?  Do you think there is a danger in presidents following public opinion too closely? Or, was Tocqueville too distrustful of the public mind?