Impeachment: Politics, the Constitution and Personal Integrity

Today, according to Barbara Cummings, Representative Conyers said, "So I'm supposed to risk my reputation for Cindy and this CIA guy?" (reference to Ray McGovern). Those of you who receive Jeeni Criscenzo’s e-mails will recognize this statement by John Conyers as coming from her latest dispatch on the meeting of impeachment supporters with Conyers and his directive to arrest them.

When I read this I asked myself, What is it with politicians that they are so given to causing human suffering and death to “preserve” their reputations? An outstanding example is Lyndon Johnson who continued the Vietnam War because he did not want to be the first U. S. president to lose a war. How many people died and were maimed for life by such an overwrought ego will never be known precisely, but it would be at least in the hundreds of thousands. While it would be next to impossible to create a war crime out of such an action because of the vagaries of proving a state of mind, this kind of behavior should be made a matter of public opprobrium as an epitome of self indulgence.

We know the dimensions of Johnson’s preference for his reputation. What are those of Conyers? Conyers is apparently prepared to reduce the continuing damage to our Constitution and liberties and the continuing carnage of Iraq to his “reputation;” Conyers is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the body that is responsible for bringing impeachment charges. He was a member of the same committee when it impeached Richard Nixon. In those days the Committee chair was Peter Rodino who was known for his courage and outrage at the unconstitutional behavior of Nixon. Rodino died in 2005. Acting New Jersey Governor Richard Codey said at the time. ''Congressman Rodino spent his whole life fighting for people's rights, This man, throughout his long and storied career, had the occasion to take part in many of the highs and lows of our country's immediate history. He was unafraid to take on the tough battles for citizens of our country." It is appropriate to ask John Conyers why he is afraid to take on the tough battle his predecessor did not shy from. Conyers may say that he does not have the support of the House speaker to do this. He could be removed as the Committee chair by Nancy Pelosi. While I doubt that this would happen, if it did Conyers would at least have given the issue the importance it deserves. Peter Rodino was concerned with the precedents that Nixon’s behavior could set for presidential power and the effect on the constitutionally required balance of powers. Conyers should take this obligation to preserve the Constitution equally seriously. The precedent is there for Conyers and his oath of office requires that he proceed. It is not Conyers nor Pelosi’s right to say this Constitutional issue is off the table. The Constitution provides impeachment as the way to remove a deleterious president from office. But despite the outrage at Conyer’s putting his “reputation” above his Constitutional responsibility, there is another side to this story.

The impeachment of Richard Nixon revealed a problem that the writers of the Constitution may not have foreseen. Carl Levin, the Speaker of the House during Nixon’s impeachment, was very concerned that the impeachment not reflect partisan interests lest the Constitutional issues involved be tainted by partisanship. His fist step toward achieving this goal was to refer the impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee rather than establishing an impeachment panel. The Judiciary Committee members had been appointed a year before impeachment arose, it had a considerable number of members from both parties and hence there could be no accusation that the Committee was hand picked. To further remove the Committee and its proceedings from partisan politics he publicly stated he had no interest in becoming president, which as Speaker, he would become because there was no Vice President. Vice President Spiro Agnew had resigned pleading no contest to charges of tax evasion and money laundering. Third, he expedited the appointment of Gerald Ford to become Vice President so that the impeachment process could begin without the taint of partisan politics. This was high-minded responsible behavior at a time of national crisis. Do we have such leaders now? Not after the travesty of Newt Gingrich’s attempt to use the impeachment process for partisan ends or after the Republicans reduced national politics to black and white and began behaving like a bunch of attack dogs.

However, to continue. The Founders apparently did not see the potential for conflict between the order of presidential succession and the impeachment process. By beginning that process in the House they made the individual third in line to become president the one to undertake the impeachment of the president. That left the vice president as the only defense against self-interested abuse of the impeachment process.

Transferring this information to our current situation, Nancy Pelosi is faced with somewhat the same situation that her predecessor Carl Levin was faced with. Currently there is considerable pressure to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Should both these people be successfully impeached Pelosi would, by Constitutional mandate, become president It is possible that her declaration that impeachment is off the table was made out of her concern to keep the process from falling afoul of political motivation. If so, what she and Conyers have to weigh are the consequences of 18 more months of Bush megalomania and leaving unchallenged his actions as precedent for any future president to use or to exercise the impeachment process that the Constitution provides thereby validating the Constitution and assuring a continuance of the balance of powers, which is its foundation.

As a final note I would observe that those Progressives arguing that the attack on Conyers is racially motivated should read Barbara Jordan’s magnificent statement of the purpose of impeachment. Jordan was a member of the same Nixon impeachment committee as Conyers. Her statement along with the focus on preserving the Constitution exhibited by Levin and Rodino exemplified the best in American statesmanship. Jordan’s statement may be found at the web site American Rhetoric: Top 100 Speeches http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm.

Robert Newhard

The Dimensions of the Problem

I have been reading Paul Theroux’s Dark Star. As you may know, Theroux is, among other things, a travel writer with a social, political and economic interest. Dark Star is his account of his East Africa trip from Cairo to Cape Town by land. Theroux had been a Peace Corps volunteer in the Rift Valley area of Africa in the 1960’s. He was a teacher at both the university level and in public schools. He is appalled at the degradation he sees over the intervening forty years. He has no schedule and takes whatever land transportation is available from where he happens to be. As a result he rides on top of cattle trucks as others do and is shot at by a band of “shifta“ (armed bands of marauders.); he rides in grossly over loaded “chicken” buses; he lives in intimate contact with much of that world, with the filth, vermin, stifling heat and masses of humanity. All this against a backdrop of the most beautiful and geologically impressive natural world one could hope for. In consequence Theroux, who speaks Swahili, the Lingua Franca of East Africa; converses with a wide variety of East Africans, including the highly educated but unemployed young people, the poor living in the massive slums of the large cities, prostitutes, medical missionaries, ministers of state and academics, trying to determine the reason for the massive economic and social dissolution he sees about him.

I commend the book to anyone who is awed by the dimensions of what must be done if we are ever to have a world in which democracy and a fair share of the world’s resources are realized. In my judgment, Africa is a continent unlike any other in that tribalism, as a method of social organization, has remained dominant far longer than on the other continents. There is the lack of a cohesive long-established culture as there is in China or India. When faced with globalization, well founded and extensive shared cultures are in a much better position to “digest” globalization by culturally accommodating it. Tribal societies, having little shared culture, are easily overwhelmed by globalization as it pits tribe against tribe, applies solutions totally inappropriate to the problem as does the World Bank and the IMF and stresses these societies beyond their ability to cohere. As a result social relationships deteriorate into the jungles of defeat, malaise and bare survival in the slums of Nairobi, where Theroux witnesses a mob stoning a presumed thief to death as people laugh at the man’s plight. Significantly, Nairobi is the city in which the last World Social Forum was held. This is the kind of thing we need to contemplate at great length and depth as we struggle for a just world.

Bob Newhard