I'm writing this week's column prior to election day, and, as deadlines go, it is one that actually helps me to focus on the 'larger picture' if that makes sense. In another way to state it, the results of the 'off-year' elections are going to be distilled to well-worn tropes and simplicities, numbers and myriad opinions, but I think that there will be very little looking at what really ails us, as a country, regardless of so-called 'outcomes' of Tuesday's exercise of the uniquely American franchise of electing our representatives in the greatest experiment of popular governing in history.

Since one of the words being bandied about in the last eighteen months (and speculation on whether it would be feasible if the Congress were split after Tuesday) is impeachment, I thought I would look into the process, its rarity of occurrence in the US, its historical context, and more importantly what it actually means to the state of American psyche and our future. And, no, the impeachment and trial of William Jefferson Clinton is not historical context. That was a waste of political capital, although we must admit that it contained no criminal proceedings, much as the Andrew Johnson impeachment also basically was political, not criminal. The Clinton trial was a travesty of American politics (as was Johnson's, but that comes shortly) and a grand distraction from the real problems that Clinton, Gingrich and so many others could have been focusing and concentrating on. But, that leads to the first presidential impeachment and trial, in 1868, of Andrew Johnson and how it may possibly relate to today's political distress.

In a nutshell, Johnson succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. There are probably many in America who don't realize that Johnson was a Democratic senator of Tennessee, picked by the Republican Lincoln in 1864 in an effort to draw enough Democratic support in the 'border states' at the height of the Civil War and Tennessee was crucial for a Lincoln victory to be reelected. Johnson was a loyalist, a 'Union man' (as many of his cohorts in Tennessee and Kentucky were) and was an important factor in Lincoln's victory (and this was no small feat, nor sure thing, as Lincoln had to run in 1864 against a strong 'peace at any price' movement led by his former General of the Army, George McClellan).

But the real point was that Johnson's sympathies as President were quickly exposed: he opposed the 14th Amendment, he opposed freed slaves' voting rights, and he opposed Reconstruction efforts which required loyalty oaths and the acceptance by the former rebellious states of the 14th amendment, as well as allowing freed slaves the right to vote, own property, etc. He did everything he could to stymie Republican efforts to extend the vote to blacks, and reappointed former rebels to state offices in the south which totally negated the entire reason for the war which killed over a half million men. The nation quickly devolved into opposing camps again, worrying with cause about another outbreak of civil war, and even the new York Times (among many newspapers) openly used the words 'coup d'etat' as they watched the President pointedly ignore the will and laws written by Congress, even threatening to utilize the army to enforce his decisions which were contrary to laws and intent of the Congress. In other words, 'above the law', enforcing what he desired without Congressional permission. A constitutional crisis was brewing, and the 14th amendment was at the heart of the crisis, but so were the political issues revolving around national finances (a mess after the Civil War), tariffs, and a general hatred of Johnson and his arrogance.

Turns out that a part of this problem with Johnson's was obvious from the very start. To quote Johnson, as reported by Michael Les Benedict in 'The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson' (W.W. Norton Press, 1973): "...complex problems frustrated him, and he sought refuge from them in general rules to govern all situations...'There is nothing like starting out on principle [he told a confidant while he was President]...when you start out right with principles clearly defined you can hardly go astray.' " In another historian's words, he could bear insult, personal danger, obloquy; but he could not yield his point. Johnson saw only right, and wrong, and saw no middle ground where minds and hearts, as well as politics, could meet and meld into consensus. He did not believe in consensus, only himself.

Once he made up his mind, there was no doubt and this particular character trait was what got him so quickly into political trouble, as well as angered so many who felt that the aims of the Union were being frustrated and negated. I found it interesting and relevant that Johnson could not read until his late teens and could not write until his twenties. Basically, digging in his feet, 'I'm right and the hell with you' that eventually led to his impeachment and trial ( there had been a previous attempt but failed to garner enough votes in the House in 1867).

Now, I'm sure a few readers will jump to the conclusion that I am drawing a parallel between Johnson and the current chief executive, but I'm not going there as I wish to paint a broader picture, at least for now. There were many questions, and still are remaining, regarding the ambiguities of the Constitution on the impeachment process. For instance, can someone be impeached on other than criminal charges, those not indictable by a civil court? But my point is a little more subtle and follows.

I turn to a column this week from the Financial Times. It's always interesting to get a European view on the American political scene, even if not always 'getting it right'. The column by Janen Ganesh went like this:' "...the underlying problem in modern politics is an excess of 'political certitude'. The basis of democracy-of civilization-is doubt. A person who is reasonably confident that their ideological program is correct is unlikely to harm anyone to advance that program. A person who is absolutely certain might...habits to be encouraged include internal doubt, changes of mind and the holding of assorted views that do not add up to a system of thought with pretensions to explain everything...it has become too easy to malign pragmatic wavering as sell-outs and flip-flops."

To put it in an expanded sentence or two, Ganesh says the politics of absolutes (John McLaughlin many times called it 'metaphysical certitude') is fueling ideological violence. If it sounds familiar in today's barbaric tone of political discourse, the House and Senate of 1866-68 felt the same way, and frequently reacted in the same reactionary manner to Andrew Johnson's certitude and method of power plays against the will of Congress, without the aid of the Supreme Court weighing in on the questions raised. Unilateral warfare, in a manner of speaking, in the cause of "I'm right, the hell with you." Almost leading to a second Civil War, and I could hardly believe my eyes, a fear of a presidential coup d'etat with the calling out of the Army to enforce the presidential law breaking.

I was struck by the word 'doubt' and realized that doubt is not bad. Doubt in current debate leads to more research, more listening. Doubt in a scientist's mind about 'established' thinking leads to enormous and earth shaking discoveries from medicine to astronomy to physics. Doubt expressed by Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, and even CS Lewis lad to deeper faith and profound rational questioning of systems of belief and established 'beliefs' which led to intellectual depth and spiritual gain and growth.

Johnson's 'starting out on principle' makes sense to a guy like me who firmly believes Ayn Rand's prime directive of "A is A", but politicians refusing to budge or even consider another point of view, the 'Resist' movement, the horrible political violence, the family and political divisions rending our country are doing us no good, and tremendous harm. The violence in our inner cities is only a fore-runner of the political violence which is the result of allowing rancor to overflow its political and rational boundaries, and invade our American spirit with Andrew Johnson's 'I'm right, by God, and to hell with you and your beliefs.'

Some think that the genesis of our country was revolution, and that violent revolution has been our birthright and our curse. Certainly our history overflows with violence, when even periods of relative domestic peace were violated by instances of radical violence, bombings (the 1970's were a prime example, if you remember) and the ongoing issues that have yet to be resolved, or solved: racial inequality, poverty, and now immigration while fifteen thousand active duty troops are attempting to enforce one side of a complex and politically frustrating issue.

If we continue to believe that there is one right answer and the holder of that right answer is me and the people who think just like me, then we are continuing down the dangerous path of 1861, 1865-68, 1968. Civility is just a word, communicating is a concept and an ideal. Communication must commence, sans political 'right thinking', and, maybe a final reflection on the newspaper editor H.L. Mencken. When he editorialized he would, of course, frequently receive blistering responses from people who opposed his thinking. Instead of getting upset, hunkering down and issuing a blistering response, he would express a trait rare in political discourse: humility. His response would be, simply: 'You may be right'. Might we find a few who would and could be so wise, not so cock-sure of their metaphysical certitude.

v14i42