Impeachment--it's not one of my favorite subjects. I've counseled progressives and Democrats to focus on other matters. But when my editors at TomPaine.com requested that I participate in a debate on impeachment, I had little choice. (You have to pay the piper.) Their idea was to twin an anti piece (mine) with a pro piece by Jennifer Van Bergen, who was subsequently identified by the site as "a journalist with a law degree."

My argument was predictable: impeachment is a political loser--especially among independent and in-the-middle voters necessary for Democratic victories down the road. Here's an excerpt:

Impeachment is a substitute--a wishful shortcut?--for the difficult legislating and organizing that the Democratic Party and progressives must do to win the country in 2008. The Dems have a window of opportunity at the moment to show the public what Democratic governance looks like. They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1.

The Dems will have about 10 minutes to rebrand themselves when the new Congress convenes. Impeachment will be a serious impediment to that effort. Worse, it would become a black hole from which little, if any, political energy could escape. It would trump all else. After the recent elections, the congressional Democrats have Bush and the Republicans at a disadvantage; they have (as the cliche goes) the political capital of the moment. Spending it on impeachment would be a waste.

You can read the whole piece here.

Van Bergen took what struck me as an odd approach. She wrote

Impeachment proceedings are not the beginning but the end result of a healing process for the nation that needs to begin now.

Healing? In her short piece, she referred to impeachment as "healing" three times. Say what you want of impeachment--it's warranted, its necessary--but most people would not consider it an action of healing. It may be an act of accountability, but it also is an act of punishment or retribution. More to the point, it would likely be a divisive political battle. There's nothing wrong per se about political combat; often it's called for--but not under the banner of healing.

Bergen claims there is a "tremendous groundswell for impeachment." I question that. Dear reader, how many of your friends, relatives, and workplace colleagues have recently asked you, "When is that new Democratic Congress gonna start impeaching George Bush"? Barack Obama is a groundswell. Impeachment is not.

Van Bergen also argues:

There is a great sense of powerlessness and rage that the populace expressed strongly through the midterm elections. But more than elections are needed to address the deep concerns so many people have. A nagging malaise, a gray depression has afflicted the country, and ordinary people--those who are not politicians or journalists or activists or lawyers--have no outlet for these feelings and no sense of remedy.

"A gray depression?" I do not see that at the mall. And if the populace, as she suggests, just expressed its rage "strongly" at the ballot box in November--an overstatement in my view--then there is an outlet for this disgust and anger: voting. Van Bergen is making a case based on what she discerns The People want--or, perhaps more accurately, what she wants The People to want. Let me make a crude point: place a documentary about the possible impeachment of George W. Bush up against an episode of Dancing with the Stars, and what do you think depressed, rage-full populace will chose? (You can read her entire piece here.)

Van Bergen is arguing a desire, not a clear-eyed case. With such advocates, the impeachment movement is unlikely to win over those not already with it.

Posted by David Corn at December 12, 2006 08:49 PM