HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Politics of Impeachment
by
Norman Solomon
June
19, 2003
Early
summer has brought a flurry of public discussion about a topic previously
confined to political margins -- the possibility of impeaching President George
W. Bush. The idea is still far from the national media echo chamber, but some
rumblings are now audible as people begin to think about the almost
unthinkable.
A
few generations of Americans are apt to view impeachment as an extreme step.
One factor has been John F. Kennedy's widely read 1956 book Profiles in
Courage, which captured a Pulitzer Prize. The book devoted a chapter to
lauding Sen. Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, whose "not guilty" vote
prevented the Senate from convicting an impeached president, Andrew Johnson, on
May 26, 1868.
In
real life, Ross -- who promptly put the squeeze on President Johnson for a
series of patronage appointments -- was hardly the idealist that Kennedy's book
cracked him up to be. But the chapter's melodrama popularized a negative image
of impeachment.
That
outlook was especially strong for nearly 20 years, until a few of President
Richard Nixon's lies caught up with him. During many months of the Watergate
scandal, throughout late 1972 and 1973, defenders of the president routinely blamed
journalists. Republicans insisted that the Washington Post and some other
"liberal" news outlets were just trying to make trouble for Nixon -- who,
after all, had recently won re-election in a landslide.
While
the specter of impeachment grew, Nixon diehards insisted that the president was
being unfairly targeted -- until released tapes of the chief executive made him
politically indefensible. When Nixon finally resigned in August 1974, the new
president uttered a phrase that instantly became famous. Gerald Ford told the
nation. "Our long national nightmare is over."
That's
how the news media have tended to portray impeachment, with coverage largely
presenting it as an ordeal that involves a lot of attorneys and vast piles of
legal documents. But impeachment is not really about law or even about
evidence. It's all about politics.
As
a political weapon, impeachment will be used to the extent that the president's
foes believe they can get away with it. While the Constitution speaks of
"high crimes and misdemeanors," that provision offers scant clarity
about standards for impeachment. In recent decades, we have seen it utilized as
an appropriate tool (against Nixon) and as an instrument of political overkill
(against Bill Clinton). In both instances, the media climate determined the possibilities
and impacts of impeachment.
In
general, the punditocracy is averse to the option of impeachment and
reflexively dismisses any such suggestion. Misuses of presidential power -- and
outright mendacity in the service of policy objectives -- are political
realities, accepted or even avidly supported as long as they remain within
vaguely customary limits. Few editorial writers or other commentators want to
risk seeming too far ahead of the media curve by suggesting that the latest
presidential deceptions might rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
At
the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, in 1987, journalists frequently made
excuses for President Ronald Reagan. There was much media talk about the
imperative of avoiding another "failed presidency" scarcely a dozen
years after Watergate. On "NBC Nightly News," the venerable
broadcaster John Chancellor declared: "Nobody wants another Nixon."
Chicago Tribune editor James Squires cautioned reporters not to repeat the
"excesses" of Watergate. And the relative restraint of the Washington
Post and other outlets was symbolized by the fact that the Post's publisher,
Katharine Graham, often socialized with the president's wife, Nancy Reagan, and
publicly touted her as a dear friend.
Democrats
in Congress did little to challenge the demagoguery of fast-talking Jimmy
Stewart impersonator Oliver North -- a former Reagan team operative who was
greatly assisted by the news media. Lieutenant Colonel North held "an entire
nation enthralled" during his congressional testimony, Ted Koppel told ABC
viewers. On NBC, Chancellor called it "a terrific performance" that
"played in Peoria."
During
the Iran-Contra hearings on Capitol Hill, journalists frequently reported as
though the proceedings would be inconclusive unless a Perry Mason style of ironclad
proof emerged. Longtime political analyst Elizabeth Drew commented on the irony
that people were "searching for a smoking gun in a room filled with
smoke."
Midway
through 2003, there's plenty of smoke as clear evidence emerges that President
Bush and several of his top foreign policy officials lied about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq during the lead-up to the war. In this context, impeachment
is a reasonable idea. But with Congress run by Republicans -- and with news
media all too deferential to entrenched power -- the chances of a serious investigation
in Washington are very slim.
Norman Solomon is Executive
Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy (www.accuracy.org) and a syndicated
columnist. His latest book is Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell
You (Context Books, 2003) with Reese Erlich. For an excerpt and other
information, go to: www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target. Email: mediabeat@igc.org