Archive: Opinions

I've written very little in this space about the impeachment process/trial in Washington, for a couple of reasons.

First, simply, writing a week ahead of time (or even a couple of days in advance) about something that, in today's news environment, could change quicker than a bolt of lightning is folly. I know as well as you do that the odds of anything 'stunning' or surprising coming out of that once-hallowed chamber is next to nil, any more than anyone still 'watching' or caring might change their mind, but I dare not tempt fate with statement or pronouncement that may reek of 'yesterday's news' or worse.

The more salient reason for not writing much about the Senate trial is that I (and possibly you) have been through this, deja vu all over again, in 1999, and find both 'trials' to be as relevant as yesterday's breakfast. The Clinton trial was essentially a partisan hack-job (go ahead and disagree, if you wish), essentially the same as this one, with voting mainly along party and partisan lines. Just change the cast of characters (for the most part) and you have a political circus that proves nothing and appeals to prurient and vicious interests, and verifying how low American politics have fallen. What Hamilton and Madison (and to a lesser extent John Jay) hoped for as they wrote The Federalist Papers to defend the proposed Constitution (specifically Federalist #65 and #66) has turned from sublime near-perfect arguments (the world's first truly democratic republic, government by and for the people) to a made-for-TV circus, a sham of politics that has the Founders spinning in their graves if they have been watching for the past twenty to thirty years. And, again I say that about the Circus Maximus of 1999 as well as the 2020 equivalent of the OJ Simpson trial. Americans know more about the royals' squabbles in Britain than the names of the people involved in this latest brou-ha-ha in Washington.

And, if I am going to rant about the idiocy that our current elected officials (both 'sides', I daresay) has foisted upon us, with the glee of the networks, then I can, with your permission, attempt to prove my point with a couple of historical references when leaders didn't play to television cameras, didn't know what a press conference was, and when the welfare of the nation was at stake on a daily basis, as now.

Case in point: Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas. A Civil War infantry major, a longtime foe of slavery who risked his life and reputation prior to the War Between the States to go against the popular tide of the 1850's. Importantly, too, the subject of John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. Ross was a Republican senator when Andrew Johnson was impeached (pissing Congress off could have been a coarse and concise description of the impeachment charges) when he (Ross) told a Republican colleague (in the majority of the Senate by a wide margin) that he wouldn't let his political leanings affect his decision when it came time to vote. The Republican caucus realized his vote to convict (the Republicans had 35, as a caucus, with 36 needed to convict) could not be counted on as a 'solid' vote. Imagine that: deciding he would be a good 'juror' instead of a good political boy and go along to get along. (N.B.: Johnson was a Tennessee Democrat, picked by Lincoln to be VP as a loyal Tennessee border state Unionist, regardless of his party).

To quote Kennedy, the author: "...Ross and his fellow doubtful Republicans were daily pestered, spied upon and subjected to every sort of pressure...".

To quote Ross (remember, this man was a combat veteran of the worst war in American history, only technically concluded three years before the trial began): "...I almost literally looked down into my grave. Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever."

The vote in the Senate was May 16, 1868 and Ross, risking all but his belief in impartial verdict and what he perceived as the welfare of the United States, voted nay, to acquit, leaving the Republican majority one vote short of the two thirds requirement. He later wrote that to give Congress such power over the President (different case but similar arguments in 1999 and 2020) would "revolutionize our political fabric into a partisan Congressional autocracy."

Note that he was thinking of more than voting the 'party line' and was castigated and threatened if he decided to vote his conscience instead of the dictates of political passions (which were just as heated, and threatening, as today, with state legislators in 1868 attempting to rejoin the Union). In reality, the Civil War was still being fought not on the battlefield, but on the Senate floor, as Reconstruction continued until 1876 and the inflamed passions of partisan politics and 'party over country' threatened the fabric of the Republic. This man stood up for what Ernest Hemingway called "grace under pressure".

Where is the Ross of the 21st century? Not in the Senate, nor the House, obviously. And I'm talking about both Republican and Democrat: Where is that one hero to stand up and say "Enough! We're destroying the country just to spite our opponents and score points to an increasingly disappointed and despondent electorate. We are holding our founding Principles hostage to childish dreams of power and reelection." You didn't hear that sentiment in the Clinton impeachment (the mirror image, in many ways, of the partisan warfare of this week) and you won't hear it now. The cowards are running the circus. No 'profiles in courage' in sight.

And, to carry it one step further, from the same era, a couple of quotes from Allen C. Guelzo, winner of the Lincoln Prize, from a fabulous book entitled Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation , published in 2004 by Simon and Schuster. Guelzo, talking of Lincoln in 1861, referred to Lincoln's "...aversion to the politics of passion" and said: "...the most important among the Enlightenment's political virtues for Lincoln, and for his proclamation, was prudence", stating that Lincoln could be viewed as the last of the Enlightenment leaders in America.

Guelzo goes on to point out that Montesquieu (frequently cited and admired by the Founders) thought the "origins of political greatness in prudence, wisdom and perseverance, since prudence would guard the passions of individuals for the sake of order and guard the guardians for the sake of freedom."

Finally, Guelzo writes that "...Lincoln hoped as president that '...it will appear that we have practiced prudence' and he promised the management of the Civil War would be '...done consistently with the prudence...which ought always to regulate the public service...".

Where is the Prudence on the floor of the Senate, in the halls of Congress, in the White House, on the nation's TV screens, on the internet? The 'passions of individuals' are roaring, tearing at the fabric. No 'side' caring for order, or for the commonweal, but only for themselves and bloated egos, bloated wallets and the roar of the crowd.

I am only 'watching' (not literally, but figuratively) this circus as a continuation of the last thirty years of political blood-letting and wondering if this is what is left of America's leadership? Our legacy?

H.L. Mencken once opined that God looks out for "children, drunks and the United States of America". Let's hope he was right, as we stumble down this dark road and wonder where, and why, the true leaders are hiding.