Impeachment Spring 2007

We should demand this not just because
it’s the right thing to do, which it absolutely is. We should do it
because it’s the course of action which has the most chance of
preventing an expansion of the war into Iran and increasing the
chances that the Democrats and some Republicans are forced to get
serious about legislation that can reverse course on Iraq. 

Some progressives argue that we should
forget about impeachment because Nancy Pelosi has told John Conyers to
cool it, that it’s “off the table,” and, in those progressives” view,
that makes impeachment unrealistic.

The question is, what do these
progressives see as the alternative? What else has the potential to
focus the massive and wide-ranging discontent within the U.S.
citizenry, the 58% of the population, according to a recent poll, who
wish that the Bush Administration was history right now? 

There is nothing else. There will be
various pieces of legislation brought forward by Pelosi and Reid, and
something stronger than the anti-“surge” wrist-slap recently passed by
the House may get through at least the House, but it is extremely
difficult to conceive of how anything of substance will pass the
filibuster barrier in the Senate barring a massive political upsurge
within the populace demanding strong action to rein in Bush and
Cheney.

Which is exactly what impeachment is all
about. It is a crystal-clear, American-as-apple-pie remedy for the
“I’m the decider” ideologues who show every indication that their
solution to the Iraq mess is to make it even bigger by expanding war
into Iran and who knows where else after that. It’s their “hail Mary”
pass but it’s not with a football, it’s with weapons of escalated
destruction.

Is it likely that the Democratic
leadership in the House — the body, remember, which by itself can
impeach a President — will grow a spine in the next month or two and
begin an impeachment investigation via John Conyers” Judiciary
Committee? Probably not. But it is possible that if the spring of 2007
becomes “impeachment spring,” beginning with massive anti-war actions
throughout the country on March 17-19 that loudly raise the
impeachment demand and continuing up to April 28, national impeachment
day — if this happens, which it absolutely can, then we might be
surprised to see a breaking of the impeachment logjam by May or June
and the beginning of those Judiciary Committee hearings.

That should be our objective. That
objective should motivate what we do and how we do it for the next
several months.

Ultimately, if we do not achieve that
objective, an impeachment campaign is still critical. Members of
Congress, the mass media, prominent personalities, those who have some
mass influence, need to feel the pressure which leads them to speak up
loudly and clearly in support of impeachment. Such a movement is the
most effective tactic in our arsenal right now to put the Bush-Cheney
gang on the defensive. Given the reality of upcoming 2008 elections
and growing anti-war opposition within the Republican Party, such a
movement will make it politically difficult for them to keep expanding
the war the way they want to.

Impeachment is a perfect example of a
good offense being the best defense. We saw how this worked in 1973
and 1974 when Richard Nixon’s Watergate troubles and the
investigations into White House-directed criminality made it
impossible for Tricky Dick and his national security advisor Henry
Kissinger to do anything of substance to prevent the on-going
withdrawal of U.S. troops from the southern part of Vietnam and the
eventual collapse of the U.S.-created government in Saigon.

Key to this was the existence of a
loosely-connected, national grassroots movement, the National Campaign
to Impeach Nixon, which came together in the fall of 1973. Through
demonstrations, lobbying and various kinds of street heat, it kept up
the pressure and helped keep the impeachment issue in the news until,
on August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned.

In hindsight, people may think that this
result was not surprising given the 1972-74 revelations of White House
illegality and solid Democratic control of both houses of Congress.
But there were liberal Democrats like Washington Post columnist
Nicholas Von Hoffman who were taking the position during this time
that it would be good for the Democrats if a weakened Nixon remained
in office. This view was shared by many other Democrats.

As a national coordinator of the
National Campaign to Impeach Nixon, I co-wrote a letter to the Post
to answer Hoffman, which said, “We believe the key to “those same
interests” [that both Nixon and Vice-President Ford represented] being
strongly opposed, the key to a Congress becoming responsible, is a
movement of citizens in the cities and towns of this country. This
movement sees the protection of our constitutional rights as the most
important priority. Congress was forced to move on impeachment because
of the massive outpouring of protest after Mr. Nixon fired Special
Prosecutor [Archibald] Cox on October 20, 1973.

“We believe that to allow Richard
Nixon’s abuse of power to go un-prosecuted would set an ominous
precedent for future Presidents. In the process of impeaching Richard
Nixon certain gross abuses of power would have to be pinpointed, thus
making the same thing more difficult in the future. And if, in the
process of impeaching Richard Nixon, a movement is built which refuses
to accept imperial rulers or undemocratic regimes, “those same
interests” which Ford represents will find it more difficult to get
their way.”

Back then the Democrats had more guts
than, as seen so far, the 2007 version. But that is no excuse for
inaction now. In many ways our situation today is much more dire than
back then. We are facing a very real risk of an extremely dangerous
expansion of the war at a time when there is an urgent need for
resources and attention to be focused on the climate crisis, health
care, New Orleans and other major issues. We have already experienced
Bush-Cheney-neo-conservative disregard of basic Constitutional rights
like habeas corpus and Congressional oversight of the Executive branch
of government.

It is essential that the progressive
movement — a movement which is much broader and deeper than what
existed in 1973 and 1974 — demonstrate its allegiance not to the
Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party but to doing what is
clearly right. How many of us will step up to the plate at this
turning-point time in our nation’s history?

Ted Glick
is active with the Climate Crisis Coalition and the Independent
Progressive Politics Network, whose website,

www.ippn.org, carries seven years of Future Hope columns. He
can be reached at: indpol@igc.org.