[lbo-talk] Perry (sigh) (Was Nader again)

[andie nachgeborenen]

Actually, this is multiply stupid on lots of grounds,
showing again that American law and politics is tricky
territory for Brits, even if they are long term
residents. In addition to the points Doug makes,
Anderson hasn't a clue about the law of impeachment.
It's highlr debateable what "high crimes and
misdemenors" are, and the only thing certain about the
expression is that an impeachable offense is one that
you can get impeached for, because the courts are
pointedly not going to say. The matter is
nonjusticable because it textually assigned to a
coordinate branch, that is Congress. And the commrents
about the founders are breathtaking in their
ignorance. Why did they all end up, or try to end up,
as Presidents then? The identification of the Prez
with the nation as a late 20th C phenom -- Mr
Anderson, meet Mr. Lincoln. Mr Lincoln, Mr Anderson is
a nice fella, visitor to our shores, knows less than
than he thinks he does, but his hear's in the right
place. Perry's great, but he should know when he's out
of his depth.

--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> C. G. Estabrook quoted Perry Anderson:
> 
> >More acutely, however, the scandals that surrounded
> his
> >Presidency made it impossible to convert into any
> kind of a
> >rallying-point. He was plainly guilty of the
> charges-molestation in
> >Arkansas, perjury and obstruction of justice in
> Washington-against him,
> >which were fully impeachable: the Constitution
> calling for the removal of
> >a President culpable even of 'misdemeanours' short
> of such breaches of the
> >law, which in other fields of office would have
> swiftly led to resignation
> >or dismissal. Widespread resistance to this logic,
> strong enough to block
> >it, comprised a number of elements. Partisan
> loyalties were affronted
> >among Democrats and the academic following attached
> to the Party. Cultural
> >susceptibilities were aroused by fears of
> Grundyism. Popular aversion to
> >impeachment, however, rested on a much more
> powerful bedrock of
> >sentiment-attachment to the quasi-monarchical
> status of the Presidential
> >office itself, as embodiment of national identity
> in the world at large, a
> >late-twentieth-century fixation foreign to the
> Founders. But if popular
> >opinion did not want impeachment, instinctively
> seeking to protect the
> >Presidency, for the same reasons it did not relish
> Clinton's conduct, an
> >indignity to the office not easily forgotten...
> 
> Anderson should really step down from that lofty
> summit he inhabits. 
> He forgets that the impeachment drive was led by
> some truly horrible 
> people and that many of us who were no fans of
> Clinton viewed his 
> enemies with deep alarm. But of course that doesn't
> matter to 
> Anderson, who dismissed "cultural antipathies" to
> the Bush admin as 
> of little political significance - and here he
> belittles that as 
> "fears of Grundyism." Also, Clinton was quite
> popular, and left 
> office with approval ratings as high as Bush's are
> now. Gore 
> distanced himself from Clinton. It's true that
> Clinton had also 
> distanced himself from his own party, and left no
> real political 
> legacy, but next to Bush, Clinton's scandals look
> like really minor 
> stuff. And far more entertaining.
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com