By Noah Rothman
Friday, November 15, 2019
“Consequential, but dull.” That’s how Reuters reporters
characterized the first day of public impeachment hearings, and they weren’t
alone. “It was substantive,” NBC News observed, “but it wasn’t dramatic.” For
partisan liberals, appraising the solemn rite of impeachment as though it was a
very special episode of “Real Housewives” conveyed only the frivolity of the
press. Clearly, though, House Democrats also want to see a little more “pizazz”
in these proceedings, if only to hold the attention of the viewing audience.
The substantive allegations against the president just aren’t doing the trick.
The Washington Post’s reporters recently observed
a distinct shift in how Democrats have begun to talk about the claim that
President Trump leveraged his power and contravened the will of Congress to
compel Ukraine to announce the commencement of investigations into his domestic
adversaries. No longer are House Democrats using the phrase “quid pro quo” as
shorthand for the scandal. Instead, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are describing
what they’ve uncovered as “evidence of bribery.” Even if “bribery” does not
accurately summarize the claims against Trump, Democrat Rep. Jim Himes said on
NBC’s “Meet the Press,” it is a more effective way to communicate the claims
against Trump than using “Latin words.”
This subtle shift is not attributable to new revelations
uncovered by House investigators but by Democrats’ discovery that voters are
nonplused by the proceedings. As the Post revealed, this rhetorical
transition followed message testing with focus groups in battleground
districts, in which voters responded with more revulsion toward the word
“bribery” than “quid pro quo” or even “extortion.” Moreover, “bribery” has the
added benefit of reflecting the language in the Constitution pertaining to
offenses that merit a remedy for presidential corruption as extraordinary as
impeachment and removal from office.
There are two problems with this. First, “bribery” does
not describe what is alleged to have occurred here—at least, not from the
president’s perspective. The offenses at issue center around the claim—one now
supported by the testimony of a half-dozen current and former administration
officials—that the president misused his authority to achieve a domestic
political objective, subordinating U.S. interests in the process. In that
effort, Trump withheld the disbursement of congressionally authorized financial
and military assistance, which may have violated appropriations law.
Some have argued that, even if Trump’s actions fall short
of the criminal definition of what constitutes “bribery,” the Constitution does
not explicitly define the term. After all, the Founders might have viewed that
which the president sought to extract for himself from Ukraine as a material
benefit. But the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was appended onto
“Treason and Bribery,” expanding the definition of what constitutes impeachable
offenses to encompass a broader array of corrupt activities that stop short of
simple “maladministration.” In other words, Congress would know an impeachable
offense when it saw one, and it has the authority to define such offenses
broadly. The Constitution is not the obstacle before Democrats; voters are.
And therein lies the second problem for Democrats. The
president’s opponents have insisted that theirs is a somber duty, and they
would go only where the facts led them. Thus far, the facts have led them in a
direction that apparently does not sufficiently titillate voters in
battleground House districts. That doesn’t speak to the gravity of the charges
against Trump but the conscientiousness of voters. By message testing the
themes surrounding impeachment and shaping their rhetorical strategy to most
excite voters’ passions, Democrats have given their Republican critics ample
ammunition to claim these proceedings are less about good governance than the
pursuit of political advantage.
Impeachment is a political process. Like any such
process, it will require broad public support if it is to be successful. To
that end, Democrats are obliged to determine what course of action plays best
with a critical mass of voters, but not at the expense of the facts of the case
before House investigators. The language Democrats are now endorsing doesn’t
clarify so much as confuse the allegations against the president. More
damningly, it suggests to persuadable observers that the facts as we understand
them are insufficient to produce the outcome Democrats would like to see from
impeachment proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment