[lbo-talk] Alterblog: When censure is not enough

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Wed Mar 15 10:29:21 PST 2006


URL: http://alternet.org/blogs/themix/33532/

From Impeachment to ... Censure?

Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri at 6:51 PM on March 14, 2006.

Feingold's motion to censure the president is a step in the right

direction; but it seems like radical times like these call for more

radical measures.

In the past month, the concept of impeachment has gained currency in

public dialogue, making appearances across the spectrum -- from

mainstream media to the town halls of Vermont and California.

But just as the public is warming to the idea, Democratic Senator Russ

Feingold has added another term into the mix: censure. Now it seems

that those who were previously in support of impeachment have jumped

to espouse censure -- as though the terms were synonymous. A popular

site for impeachment news, "Afterdowningstreet.org" can now be reached

through the url "Censurebush.org."

I think there is a danger in embracing this approach; reframing the

movement from impeachment to censure is akin to softening the blow

before we have even made a proper fist.

First, it's important to acknowledge the importance of Feingold's

message. His call for action on the president's illegal conduct -- and

the deafening silence from his fellow politicians -- is an important

piece of the machinery that could push Americans to ask the right

questions.

Furthermore, Feingold's public appearances on CNN and interviews with

mainstream media outlets are solidifying the knowledge that many

lawyers have already digested: President Bush's warrantless wiretap

program is illegal and falls easily into the impeachable category of

high crimes and misdemeanors.

When CNN's Soledad O'Brien questioned whether there was still doubt

about the legality of the program, Feingold retorted,

There is no serious debate about whether the president was within

the law. This is the game of intimidation and it's working.

Obviously, they've got you thinking that there's a legal basis for

this when there isn't. Even Republican Senators have said this

isn't within the law. What we do know, what the President has

admitted is that it was not within the FISA, so president broke the

law.

While acknowledging that the NSA program is "a lot more like an

impeachable offense than anything President Clinton ever did,"

Feingold fails to follow through, arguing that censure, rather than

impeachment, is "a way to restore constitutional order on a bipartisan

basis."

But the argument makes little sense. There is no escaping the fact

that publicly chastising this president is a partisan issue. It seems

unlikely that those who oppose impeachment will be inclined to support

Feingold's political call for censure.

Even outside of the appeal for bipartisan support, the notion that

censure would restore order is misleading. Feingold told the press,

"Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest

and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president."

With all due respect to Feingold's boldness, this statement is simply

incorrect.

What censure is (and isn't)

Censure resolution was used only once before; back in 1834. President

Andrew Jackson rejected it as illegal and unconstitutional. Jackson

had a point -- the Constitution makes very clear that the only

resolution for presidential crimes is impeachment. Given President

Bush's consistent claims to expansive executive power, it would be out

of character for him to not argue the unconstitutional nature of a

censure just as Jackson did.

While Feingold indicated that his move for censure is a possible

precursor to impeachment, there is neither legal precedent nor

connection between the two.

The most recent talk of censure came during the Clinton impeachment

proceedings. But in that context, it was discussed as a carrot,

functioning as a corollary to the de facto stick -- impeachment. In

other words, it was thought of as a potential gesture of good will to

be extended to Clinton if he cooperated by being more forthcoming in

questioning.

Even within this framework, Republicans quickly trashed the idea. Rep.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, "This censure idea without an admission

on the president's part, is a political cop-out." Tom DeLay made clear

that he viewed censure as "unsatisfactory and unconstitutional." And

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) pointed out that, "Anyone who thought the

president should be impeached beforehand will still think so, and

anyone who thought that the president should not be impeached will

think that."

The contradiction in Feingold's message is evident: while

acknowledging that the president is guilty of an impeachable offense,

he avoids the clear call for the only constitutional legal remedy that

can stop the offense from occurring.

The move to censure has proved perplexing to those pursuing the legal

avenue of impeachment. As Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)

lawyer Shayana Kadidal explained, "As an attorney, I don't see why

Congress should be hesitant to consider impeachment. The process,

unlike a censure, would include a real investigation and trial for

illegal conduct, not merely a declaration of Congress' disapproval."

Confronting the fear

Part of the blame may be the unpopularity of the word "impeachment."

Even members of the progressive community are recoiling from the

concept. But the arguments against impeachment seem to revolve largely

around a nebulous fear: That it's not possible and therefore not worth

the energy to try, or that it distracts from the goal of winning the

upcoming elections.

The most legitimate concern is that the impeachment of Bush will

provide too easy a scapegoat for our political woes. But impeachment

campaigns, such as the one led by CCR, have made clear that the call

for impeachment is not simply about this president. Rather, it's about

halting the rampant expansion of executive powers under this

administration's watch.

Impeachment skepticism

Cataloguing Bush's many distortions of the U.S. Constitution, Harold

Meyerson recently wrote in the Washington Post, "Does any or all of

this rise to the level of an impeachable offense, or is it merely the

kind of thing that lands a president on eternal sizzle in one of

Dante's lower loops?"

Could it really be that a majority of Americans believe the president

deserves to wallow in the depths of hell, but should not be

investigated and impeached?

I believe that, by running away from impeachment, the progressive

community passes up a golden opportunity for mobilizing change. Salon

writer Michelle Goldberg recently covered a recent public impeachment

panel held in New York City. While the panel was billed as "Is There A

Case for Impeachment," Goldberg points out there was little question

whether the president should be impeached based on the evidence;

rather, it was a question of whether Bush could be impeached.

To address this is to face our biggest fear. Goldberg accurately

labels what's ailing the progressive community: Fear of facing its

impotence. "It seems almost willfully naive to talk about mustering a

congressional majority for impeachment without grappling with the

deformation of our democracy that must be overcome first."

Impeachment and inquiry will not solve America's political problems.

As Meyerson and other pundits have pointed out, the administration is

so rotted to the core that simply attempting to oust Bush will hardly

remedy the larger problems. But a diligent impeachment inquiry could

signal the beginnings of a true examination of the broken political

system that created and nurtured George Bush and enabled his legal

trespasses.

A tool for change

Toward the end of the impeachment panel in New York, an audience

member asked, "Are you willing to discuss the alternative that the

American people have if they're faced with an illegal government

because impeachment doesn't work?" Panelist Lewis Lapham, who recently

wrote an article for Harper's on the impeachment movement replied, "I

do think that it could easily get to the revolutionary stage, because

I would expect the fight to be extremely ugly. It might come to that.

I don't think you're going to keep your democratic republic easily."

While talk of revolution may have long ago lost its cache, it's

important to identify the revolution that this administration has

started in its midst. Legal blogger Anonymous Liberal wrote yesterday,

What Republican strategists have learned is that when a party

speaks in unison, it has the power to define what is considered

reasonable in the eyes of the national media, and in turn, the

American public. When a Republican steps over the line... more

often than not his Republican colleagues act collectively to move

the line...Talking points that would have seemed totally absurd

days earlier suddenly become credible and reasonable, and for no

other reason than they are being repeated by a chorus of Republican

politicians, pundits, and bloggers. In this way, the definition of

"reasonable" can be changed dramatically overnight.

The groundswell for impeachment revealed a growing political awakening

among Americans. It seems to me that progressives would be foolish not

to harness this momentum. To push for censure rather than impeachment

is to walk away from a fight to regain reason.

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is AlterNet's assistant editor.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list