Why the Skittish Caucus is so Skittish About Impeachment. [View all]

[kennetha]

Democrats who flipped Republican districts in 2018 are a blessing and a curse. They are a blessing because they are crucial to the Democratic majority. They are a curse because they still live in fear of Trump ... just like Republicans do.

They are the SOLE reason that Nancy Pelosi fears undertaking impeachment. Her calculation seems to be that many of these seats ... many of which were won, but won narrowly, thanks to a highly activated democratic vote, a somewhat less activated republican base, and the desertion of suburban Republican women, especially, from the Republican column -- would be lost (and with them the Majority) if the House moves to impeachment. They dare not do anything to supercharge the Republican base or give those wavering defectors the chance to recant and return to the fold. Impeachment would do just that, she seems to think. Or at least her members seem to think. So she hems and haws and tries to balance on a tightrope between the different factions of her caucus.

I get the "strategic" calculation. But t I'm not at all convinced that this isn't a recipe for disaster.
First, failure to move aggressively against a president who is in such OBVIOUS, FLAGRANT and ONGOING violation of the law and the constitution may dampen the enthusiasm of the democratic base.

After all one of the things that the Democrats promised that GOT them the House was not just to pass symbolic legislations destined to go nowhere as long as Trump was in office (and the Republicans in control of the Senate) but to be a CHECK on the EXECUTIVE. Some check they are. Trump is acting even more out of control. If the Democrats cannot use their majority to in any way constrain a lawless president what good are they, some of the base may wonder. And that may depress base turnout.

Pelosi and the skittish part of the caucus would probably counter that it's the job of the presidential nominee, whoever she or he turns out to be, to generate enthusiasm among the base. That will carry over into House elections, allowing the skittish to keep their heads low on the question of impeachment and ride the Presidential coattails. That way they can focus on confronting Trump on issues ... where they seem to believe they have an advantage, or at least that they won't alienate many marginal voters by talking healthcare rather than impeachment.

Perhaps that will work. Only time will tell. Even the best laid plans have a way of going asunder. One possible problem is that Trump probably already has plenty of ammo with which to excite the Republican base and to woo back defectors.

Think about it this way. Trump has clearly violated the law. Pelosi herself has all but said as much ... I want to see him in prison, not impeached ... Since the DOJ opinion only says he cannot be prosecuted while in office, an OBVIOUS question for the Democratic nominee is whether Trump should face prosecution if he is not re-elected.

How do you suppose the Democratic nominee should answer that question. Yes? No? No comment? We shall see?
What is the "safe answer," the one that will not turn the election into a referendum, at least in part, on the question of Trump's criminality and what to do about it?

Answer there is NO safe answer! Any answer a candidate gives is going to alienate somebody and piss off somebody.
What to do about Trump and his law breaking is an unavoidable question. It HAS to be faced. It CANNOT be swept under the rug. And it is BOUND to divide.

So look, whatever worries you have about impeachment "firing up the Republican base and causing republican defectors to return to the fold" you should have in spades about the question, and what happens if Trump is not -reelected. Do we just say, oh well, he's out of office, that is punishment enough? I don't think so. Or maybe I'm wrong, but then what does that mean?

And what happens if he wins? Then will the Democrats push the issue of impeachment? Fat chance of that.

So here's the thing. We face a question of great and lasting signficance for the constitutional order. It CANNOT be avoided or swept under the rug. Either we face up to it now or we face up to it during the campaign.

Given that what do Democrats gain by stalling and dithering? Once the campaign has been joined in full don't count on the House making a methodical walk through the evidence against Trump.