Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« The persecution continues | The Pink Panther Is Not To Be ... »

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

March Boldness

Posted by on February 28 at 10:16 AM

The March issue of Harper’s has a long cover-story calling for Bush’s impeachment, which I think makes the monthly magazine the first major American publication to explicitly say Bush should be removed from office.

The piece, by Lewis H. Lapham (no surprise) relies heavily on a much-ignored report by Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) detailing misconduct by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War. You’ll have to buy the issue if you want to read Lapham’s entire piece — it’s not online yet — but a representative quote is below…

harperscover.jpg

Before reading the report, I wouldn’t have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don’t know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country’s good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world’s evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation’s wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.

UPDATE: An alert Slog reader points out that there is an excerpt of Lapham’s article available here.

UPDATE 2: Another reader notes that the Center for Constitutional Rights has articles of impeachment written and ready to go, here. Hey, those of you obsessed with the grassroots push for impeachment, put your favorite links in the comments — I’ve been meaning to do one big impeachment extravaganza Slog post, and your links will help me a bunch.


CommentsRSS icon

I wouldn't have thought impeachment likely either, but now that a thought leader like Lapham endorses it, we're sure to mobilize the whole country. After all, mainstream America respects Lapham almost as much as it does Noam Chomsky.

Thanks for posting this.

The article is now online:

http://harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

To the degree that Lapham cites the Conyers report, he is in part relying on a previous Harpers article I believe by Marc Crispin Miller. It was a good piece.

Anyway, here's the legal, less polemical case for impeachment, recently released as a book/ pamphlet:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/impeachment

You can buy a copy and have it sent to your Representative for half off.

WF: Do you have a link for the Crispin Miller article?

To David Summerlin:
Hint: Try focusing on the message rather than the author. I know it may be difficult for a small mind like yours, but drop the sarcasm for a second and give it a shot.
And what's a thought leader anyway? Do you make that one up all by your wee self? Brilliant!

Emerson, are you like totally irony impaired or what?

Speaking of impeachment, any word on how the ITMFA thing is going? I feel like it will have to be spelled out for quite some time before people get it, but it might be a worthy campaign. I would put an ITMFA bumper sticker on my car and spread the word any way I could.

ITMFA is in Savage Love next week...

I read Harper's on the plane to St. Louis yesterday... it's a great piece.

Word. I look forward to it.

It is a great piece - it's been a while since I could read an LL essay all the way through. Did you catch that AIDS article after it, though? Talk about horrifying and depressing (and loooonnnnnnnng); I still haven't gone back to finish it.

Yo, Summerlin!
I'm like what! And you're, like, not even aware of what irony is...

Hmmm. Okay, bye!

Lewis Lapham is a crackpot. He was great once, and for a long long time. When he dies, he will be justly remembered as having mainly been great. He is now a loony bird. It's interesting, and maybe even laudable that he's rolling all his dice and the thousand years of intellectual/moral credibility Harper's has earned, but come the fuck on. The impeachment "movement" is about as meaningful as a "War Is Terrorism" bumper sticker or a "Dance Kerry into Office" flyer. I'm all for calling a criminal a criminal, but calling for impeachment--a political impossibility--just makes liberals sound like alarmist fools.

President Clinton was busted ON CAMERA and only barely got impeached by a unified and powerful Republican congress (armed with plenty of Democratic henchmen) bent on doing nothing but impeaching him. Now it's eight years later, the Republican congress is slightly less unified but every bit as powerful (with Democratic resistance even weaker than it was then, if that's possible) and not a single one of them would even consider impeaching Bush for starting a war that's still going on, no matter how unpopular, immoral, or unwinnable it is.

Can we not be crazy?

Barron's Magazine called for impeachment in an editorial not long ago; don't have a link, reg. is required.

Calling for Bush's impeachment is cathartic. And that seemingly is enough for most people. To paraphrase John Lennon, whatever gets you through the news cycle...

The link to an "excerpt" of the Crispin Miller article I referenced is here:

http://harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

The article doesn't call for impeachment. It doesn't even prove the 2004 election was stolen. It just says that the media more or less decided to not even bother asking whether it was stolen or cover those who were. And they had to bury some pretty disturbing anecodatal evidence to do so. I only mention this here to footnote Lapham's source material.

As a side note, I don't get why it's so crazy to call for impeachment based on offenses that are far worse than Clinton or even Nixon (or Reagan and Iran Contra...). The peace movement didn't achieve world piece, the disarmament movement didn't bring disarmament, the civil rights movement brought an end to de jure southern segregation only to see de facto forms of northern racial segregation increase through mechanisms of suburbanization and relocating whole industries from the rust belt to the sunbelt. This Republican Party isn't going to impeach this President. But calling Bush a criminal, and forcing the whole Republican Congress to defend him, allows all sorts of travesties to be aggregated in a handy way, and personalized just in time for the mid term elections. It's worth a shot.

The call for impeachment isn't crazy, it's just that impeachment isn't going to happen. Not yet anyway.

Zogby found that the month before Conyers released his latest report, more than half of America said they'd impeach based on lying to Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war. Also, in Gore's recent, wonderful, largely ignored speech, he, too, called for a special counsel to investigate high crimes. If this is loony, at least it's a popular kind of loony.

But popular doesn't make for an impeachment after all the Republican power grabbing of recent years. It isn't crazy to scream for justice, even if it's naive to expect it in return. Lapham adding his voice to an already popular movement (no matter how consistently wonderful he is) is like showing up with beer after the party's already been busted.

We have to, absolutely must, focus on regaining Congress by whatever means. If, and this is a big if, Dems can manage to sober up a little and not be quite so very in love with their own bombastic rhetoric, there's some chance we can start slogging through the difficult tasks of cleaning up the mess the manchild has made of the world in a few short years. Solutions will be unpopular if they are even possible.

If bombastic rhetoric were a political liability, then we wouldn't have the Republican-dominated federal government that we do.

The impeachment nonsense didn't seem to hurt Republicans politically at all.

And anyway, say what you will about Kerry. He wasn't bombastic. Ditto Gregoire. Bombast isn't a problem the Democrats suffer. They suffer from rudderlessness and fear that a strong opinion will make them look like they're 60s radicals (which they're not and never really were). They also suffer from a bunch of corporate liberal suck ups who think that attacking their lefty base over style is more productive than actually attacking their enemies (since attacking Republicans would be improper).

Oh, and how can you say impeachment was already popular? Who, exactly, popularized this in the press, or even the left press? I guess I've been out of the loop.

WF, I base my use of the term "popular" on Zogby's 53 percent figure from November 2005. That's not overwhelmingly popular, granted, but also it doesn't qualify as a fringe movement, even if the MSM ignores it.

For what it's worth, I agree completely with your assessment of Democrats as rudderless and fearful of passionate opinion. I also would put John Kerry's picture next to the definition of bombast. I voted for him anyway, but I wouldn't have picked him out of the primary lineup.

Oh, and I support impeaching G.W.B. I've given time and words to the cause, but I don't expect it will happen.

WF hit the nail on the head saying impeachment efforts would be beneficial by...
"forcing the whole Republican Congress to defend him"
The actions of this presidency do not stand up to any kind of criticism. The facts scream "criminal", so lets at least get it on the rcord, not in the archives of hippie liberal blogs, but in Congress. 20 years from now no senior senator is going to want on his record that he/she was against impeaching this guy. Force them to chose their side of history they want to stand on. Force the john McCain's of the world, with all the appearences of bullet proof integrity, to walk the walk, or shut the f-ck up.

I will say that when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors votes for impeachment, they are playing into some not very helpful stereotypes about the left's tendency toward grandstanding from positions of powerlessness. They're right in principle. But in practice: a better focus would be Democratic party legislative district meetings.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0301-02.htm

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).