"Preserve," Support" "Protect," and "Defend" -- Four Words That Should Matter

     In reviewing the 183 articles I've posted since this site's inception back in February of 2005, I was intrigued to discover that four were on the subject of Impeachment.  The first of these, Villainova, was posted back on December 23, 2005; the most recent, To Impeach or Not to Impeach: Why is There a Question? ran on November 15, 2007. The February 23, 2006 piece carried the straightforward, not terribly imaginative title Impeach George Bush!  In rereading the articles -- including the July 26, 2007 piece entitled Bush's Tush -- I was both amazed and downhearted to find that the four had engendered a total of two -- precisely TWO -- comments.  On the other hand, my recent pieces on Senator Obama have garnered enough commentary -- some diligently thoughtful, some patently ugly -- to fill a fair-sized filing cabinet.   

   Well, ready or not, here comes the fifth op-ed piece on Impeachment -- but with a bit of a difference.

    I am not going to argue either the correctness or the necessity of impeaching Bush and Cheney; in an ideal world, they would have been hauled before the Judiciary Committee a long time ago.  

   I am not going to enumerate the 35 articles that Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich so painstakingly read into The Congressional Minyan two nights ago; although chilling to the max, it makes for boring reading.

   I am not going to wager on the chances of Impeachment or criminal indictment ever becoming reality; if I want to place a bet, it will be on something with better odds for success -- like the Florida Lottery or Irish Sweepstakes.

   I am not going to bemoan the fact that in the past 48 hours, the national media has run precisely 2,744 articles on "killer tomatoes," to a mere 240 on impeachment; we the people are as much to blame as the media for this grossly lopsided statistic.  

   And, I am not going to tar Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leaders Hoyer and Reid or the rest of Congress with the brush of cowardice; why waste good ink on that which is -- or at the least damn well ought to be -- painfully obvious? 

   Madam Speaker has already staked herself to a position: that Impeachment would be a waste of time considering that the Bush Administration is now in its lame-duck phase.  She's also worried that Republicans would use Impeachment as a club with which to beat Democrats in the 2008 election.  Then too, she says that "Congress can use its time more wisely on the real problems we face."  OK, you tell me: what do you expect from Congress in the next several months on such issues as the housing crisis, the price of gas, health insurance, the war in Iraq, global warming or a couple of dozen other critical issues?

   Instead, let's talk about what not initiating impeachment proceedings means; about the sorry state of words, deeds, integrity and We the People.

   In pouring over what I believe to be a representative sampling of articles and commentary out here in Cyberspace, I've noticed that people break down into two heavily-barricaded camps:

• Those who firmly believe that Bush, Cheney and their confreres are the second coming of Benedict Arnold -- if not Vlad the Impaler, and
• Those who are absolutely convinced that anyone and everyone supporting Impeachment is a Looney Tune. 

   While all this angry, defensive finger-pointing, this resorting to ad hominem argumentation may make for good theatre, it fairly ignores what is truly at stake: the very future of the United States of America as envisioned by the Founders. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Monroe and the rest thoroughly rejected the royalist principles that "l'etat, c'est moi," and "The king can do no wrong."  These brilliant products of the Enlightenment fully understood that if the United States was to succeed, it had to be a "nation of laws, and not of men."  They didn't just talk a good game; they staked their lives, fortunes and reputations on it.  Who today has that much gumption or conviction? 

   Somewhere along the lines, we lost that understanding.  Far too often as both a polity and a society, we are far more interested in next week, the next election, the next fiscal quarter, than we are with the next generation or the generation after that.  We fail to understand that indebtedness doesn't just accrue to Visa or Mastercard, China, India or Saudi Arabia, but to history as well. Far too often we calculate our indebtedness -- whether personal, corporate or national -- only in terms of dollars and cents.  What we have failed to calculate is our future indebtedness in terms of peace and progress, optimism, progressivism and [small-r] republicanism.

   When Congress gleefully impeached President Bill Clinton for perjury and extramarital shtupping, much of the world chuckled; to them, it was both partisan and incredibly frivolous. But when Congress refuses to even consider impeachment proceedings against President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney for their very real "high crimes and misdemeanors," much of the world cringes.  They see America's moral compass becoming irreparably smashed and beaten.

   When one takes the oath of office, they place their right hand on a Bible -- or in the case of Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison a Koran after the Bible -- and solemnly swear to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true allegiance to the same. . ."  It seems to me that these words -- especially the verbs "support" and "defend" have lost all meaning.  For what is at stake is not just the future of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, individual Democrats or Republicans, the outcome of the next election, but the very fabric of this nation "of laws, not of men."  By standing blithely by and permitting so many laws to be broken, so many lies to be papered over, so much liberty to be abased, it darkens the American skies with the ominous thunderclouds of self-destruction.

   History, of course will have the final word.  It has never ceased to amaze me how many of yesterday's headline-making "loonies" are today's forgotten heroes. A couple of examples:

   In his day, Wisconsin Representative Victor Berger was called "the most dangerous man in America."  His "crime?"  He dared to talk about the need for a national system of old-age pensions back before World War I. 

  

In the late 1920s a New York Representative by the name of Fiorello LaGuardia was labeled "a grandstanding lunatic" for proposing much of what would within three years be called "The New Deal." 

   As early as 1935, New York Representative Emanuel Celler was scoffed at for warning that the creation of a House committee to investigate so-called "un-American activities" would likely make "the mere harboring of unpopular opinions" a federal crime. 

   And now there's Representative Dennis Kucinich -- who is already being called every vile name in the book -- for having the "temerity" to nail his 35 Articles of Impeachment on the House door.  

    I do not pretend to know what history's verdict will be so far as George W. Bush and his administration go.  As the saying goes, "I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet."  What I do know, however, is that unless -- and until -- we come to understand that such verbs as "preserve," "protect," "support" and "defend" have real meanings with real consequences, our debt to future generations will be far far greater than our debt to Visa, Mastercard or China. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

    

Comments

[Sue]

Just reviewed Edward R Murrow's last post from London in 1946 in which he 'reckons' that the Brits did not lose their soul during WWII. Which is more than we Americans say after Gulf WarII. Murrow wrote about the legal system that was fair for all, friends and enemies alike and spoke of their refusal to lose their ethics with friends or enemies. This essay is worth reading. Personally I want to cry at the way we have let our values crumble during the last 8 years and it is our fault. We elected him and we kept silent.

Sue

[Carl Pope's father]

Your just a bunch of girly libby men.

[Alex Levy]

I agree with you, however while impeachment is the correct thing to do, it would further magnify the rift between parties which Bush helped develop. So from that standpoint it would foster a negative cause. Also, while I would like to see some positive things come out of congress in the next 6 months, Impeachment proceedings certainly would stifle that.

[Alan Weiss]

I can't wait until the only bushes I am concerned with are the pretty things around houses. Impeached or not, good riddance.

[Joseph]

I thoroughly agree that there must be some consequence(s) to the outrageous assault on the Constitution that has been made by George Bush, Dick Cheney and other un-named co-conspiritors. The only argument against impeachment that makes any sense to me is that it is not severe enough. If successful (a highly improbable result), the most that could happen to them would be they would be booted out of office. A more appropriate penalty would likely be meted out if they were tried and convicted of murder as has been proposed by Vincent Bugliosi in his new book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder". To do nothing, to not condemn them in the strongest possible way, will say to future presidents and generations that this type of behavior is acceptable...and that should not be acceptable to any of us!

[warren]

I think we all know the reason why the Democrats can't deal with impeachment. THEY ARE FRIGHTENED.
And that's been their middle name since the early 1970's. FRIGHTENED.
My view: Until Democrats can stand up for what they believe in, they will be viewed as wimps who cannot govern and will fold any time a decision has to make that is viewed negatively in the polls. Just look at all the Democrat wimps in the Senate that voted for the Iraq war. (Including Hillary, the leader of the wimp groupies).