Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ending Impeachment Myths VIII -- "Impeachment will only increase the support for Bush."
This myth is based on the observed net increase in President Clinton's popularity after his own impeachment challenge. President Clinton emerged more popular after his acquittal than he was at the start of the impeachment.
The problem with this idea is that, although it is rooted in an observation of association, the association is mistakenly being seen as a causation.
Let us assume that the person employing this myth genuinely believes it to be true. The obvious logic is that an impeachment automatically causes an increase in popularity. If this logic is true, wouldn't it be reasonable for Republicans to initiate impeachment in order to increase President Bush's popularity?
The absurdity of the proposal illustrates the absurdity of the underlying causal argument.
Why, then, did President Clinton's popularity go up? The prevailing opinion is that, after massive exposure to the televised proceedings, the majority of the public came to believe that the impeachment attempt was little more than a politically-motivated smear-job. The key accusation, after all, was that Clinton was lying about what can reasonably be construed as a personal and private matter with no direct implications regarding his duties as President of the nation.*
Would the same thing happen with respect to President Bush? I don't think so.
The Clinton impeachment was essentially a top-down affair. The newly-dominant Republican majority launched an unfocused investigation based on vague allegations of misconduct in a real estate involving the Clintons ("Whitewater"). The Lewinsky affair turned up after tens of millions of public tax dollars had been spent investigating Whitewater with no substantive results. Evidence of the affair was broadcast widely to the public, who suddenly took intense interest in the proceedings.
The movement to impeach Bush is essentially a bottom-up affair. Many grassroots groups across the nation have been arguing for years that impeachment is deserved for a variety of substantive reasons -- all of which are intimately tied up with the official conduct of members of the executive branch. Several accusations revolve around a failure to uphold the oath of office, which is a much more serious charge than any leveled against Clinton.
It is possible that an impeachment effort would fail. In this worst-case scenario, it is even possible that Bush would emerge vindicated in the mind of the public. I, personally, view this outcome as highly unlikely.
Notably, public demand for impeachment has been growing steadily, despite a relative lack of coverage of the topic in the major media. People are being convinced by evidence that is already readily available online -- it will not require a prolonged and expensive investigation to find a cause, only short and focused efforts to obtain relevant evidence for existing accusations.
SUMMARY:
*As stated elsewhere, while I agree with the sentiment that Clinton's affair was a private matter, I do not agree that lying about it to the public was a legitimate response to the investigation. I supported the effort to impeach Clinton.
The problem with this idea is that, although it is rooted in an observation of association, the association is mistakenly being seen as a causation.
Let us assume that the person employing this myth genuinely believes it to be true. The obvious logic is that an impeachment automatically causes an increase in popularity. If this logic is true, wouldn't it be reasonable for Republicans to initiate impeachment in order to increase President Bush's popularity?
The absurdity of the proposal illustrates the absurdity of the underlying causal argument.
Why, then, did President Clinton's popularity go up? The prevailing opinion is that, after massive exposure to the televised proceedings, the majority of the public came to believe that the impeachment attempt was little more than a politically-motivated smear-job. The key accusation, after all, was that Clinton was lying about what can reasonably be construed as a personal and private matter with no direct implications regarding his duties as President of the nation.*
Would the same thing happen with respect to President Bush? I don't think so.
The Clinton impeachment was essentially a top-down affair. The newly-dominant Republican majority launched an unfocused investigation based on vague allegations of misconduct in a real estate involving the Clintons ("Whitewater"). The Lewinsky affair turned up after tens of millions of public tax dollars had been spent investigating Whitewater with no substantive results. Evidence of the affair was broadcast widely to the public, who suddenly took intense interest in the proceedings.
The movement to impeach Bush is essentially a bottom-up affair. Many grassroots groups across the nation have been arguing for years that impeachment is deserved for a variety of substantive reasons -- all of which are intimately tied up with the official conduct of members of the executive branch. Several accusations revolve around a failure to uphold the oath of office, which is a much more serious charge than any leveled against Clinton.
It is possible that an impeachment effort would fail. In this worst-case scenario, it is even possible that Bush would emerge vindicated in the mind of the public. I, personally, view this outcome as highly unlikely.
Notably, public demand for impeachment has been growing steadily, despite a relative lack of coverage of the topic in the major media. People are being convinced by evidence that is already readily available online -- it will not require a prolonged and expensive investigation to find a cause, only short and focused efforts to obtain relevant evidence for existing accusations.
SUMMARY:
- It is absurd to believe that the impeachment itself caused the increase in Clinton's popularity. Would Republicans impeach Bush to increase his popularity?
- The Clinton impeachment was organized in a top-down manner. The Bush impeachment movement is organized in a bottom-up manner. The current effort is people-driven, not politics-driven.
- An impeachment of Bush requires only narrow investigations into well-defined accusations of wrongdoing, not a wide-spread and costly "fishing expedition" as was seen with Clinton.
*As stated elsewhere, while I agree with the sentiment that Clinton's affair was a private matter, I do not agree that lying about it to the public was a legitimate response to the investigation. I supported the effort to impeach Clinton.
