General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)I'll be blunt. Democrats help "normalize" Trump if we wait for an election to hold him accountable [View all]
To be clear, it is not yet certain that Democrats won't move to impeach Trump in the House rather than leave it for voters to decide whether he's committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" sufficient to remove him from office. But some prominent Democratic voices have argued that "impeachment " would be a divisive course of action that could complicate Democratic Party chances prior to the 2020 elections. And the clock keeps ticking.
Not formally moving toward impeachment of Trump shuts down the prescribed constitutional remedy for extraordinary Presidential misconduct, and punts Trump's behavior to the realm of politics as usual; opposing views on issues litigated via an election: Those who support Trump vote for him, those who don't vote against him. Which is what American voters do under normal circumstances every four years. We choose between (almost invariably) two individuals who are presumed to be at least arguably qualified to become or remain President.
But someone found to have committed significant unlawful acts is not qualified to be President. Someone who advances unconstitutional means of pursuing an agenda is not qualified to be President. There are distinct legal and constitutional checks on either of those behaviors It is normal for voters to litigate via elections which set of policy objectives they prefer, and/or who they more trust with the Presidency. But for our democracy and system of law to prevail in the future as it has so far since our nation's founding, elections should not be expected to decide whether lawful or illegal actions are preferred, or whether constitutional or unconstitutional means should be pursued by a President.
If a President of the United States commits crimes they must be investigated and documented and judged to the extent that our legal system allows. It should not be seen as subject to a public referendum. It is law. The average voter can't be expected to have either the time nor access to specialized expertise to serve as a jury in the context of a partisan election campaign where no rules of evidence prevail. Not after those who had all the needed tools chose not to use them. If a President of the United States fails to uphold our Constitution, our Constitution provides a specific remedy for that behavior; the impeachment process. It was not left to the electorate to decide when the Constitution has been violated, and if so whether or not that's OK so long as they support the President who did so. Congress has a prescribed role that it is expected to play when high crimes and misdemeanors have credibly been accused of a President. Not to play that role infers that the grounds do not exist to trigger that obligation.
We are dealing with Donald Trump now yes, but we are also establishing new constitutional norms and precedents if we just leave it to voters to either condone or condemn the undermining of our system of law and our American Constitution. Demagogues flourish in that type of environment, when the most flagrant abuses of power are passed off for voters alone to face or ignore in the heat of a partisan electoral campaign. That leaves treason subject to a popular vote and normalizes whatever behavior is necessary to secure victory at the ballot box.