By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article argues the time has come to take impeachment seriously, noting that numerous House Democrats have already advanced articles against Trump and his cabinet. The author believes the impeachment articles filed thus far are not politically motivated, but rather statements of fact about the current administration’s actions. While some may view impeachment as futile, the author points to recent events and the urgency for Democrats to act. The article concludes by suggesting that Democrats should expose these actions, laying the groundwork for action in the future.
Read the original article here
Embracing impeachment, at this juncture, feels less like a simple political strategy and more like a necessary reckoning. It’s a sentiment born from frustration, a desire for accountability, and a recognition that the established norms are failing. The sheer volume of perceived transgressions, from what seems like outright disregard for the law to potential abuses of power, fuels the call for impeachment. It’s not just about one specific offense; it’s about a pattern, a systemic erosion of the principles the nation supposedly stands for.
The core argument boils down to this: any elected official, especially a president, who appears to operate above the law, needs to be held accountable. And if the traditional mechanisms of justice seem inadequate, then impeachment, a constitutional remedy, must be employed. Delaying or hesitating in the face of perceived wrongdoing sends a dangerous message, suggesting that certain individuals are untouchable, that they are not subject to the same standards as everyone else. Such an outcome damages the very fabric of democracy.
However, the reality of the situation is grim. The prevailing sentiment is that even if impeachment is initiated, the chances of conviction in the Senate are slim. The current political climate, characterized by staunch partisanship and a perceived unwillingness of Republicans to hold their own accountable, makes removal from office a distant prospect. This is the crux of the dilemma: is impeachment a worthwhile endeavor if the outcome is predetermined? Does it become a performative exercise, a symbolic gesture devoid of any real consequence?
Some view impeachment as a waste of time and resources, arguing that it consumes political capital that could be better spent on other pressing issues. The focus, they suggest, should be on concrete actions, on winning elections, on enacting policies that can effect tangible change. Others take a much harsher view: Impeachment might be a signal to the base that the Democrats are against the current administration, but is unlikely to lead to any substantial outcome.
The debate also delves into the long-term implications. The argument is made that impeachment, even if unsuccessful, can still serve a purpose. It can expose wrongdoing, inform the public, and galvanize opposition. It can also act as a deterrent, sending a message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated.
The alternative perspective leans towards systemic change. The call for election process remodeling, district map overhauls, and stricter standards for public officials shows the scope of the problem. Many hold the view that the current system is broken, and that real change requires more than just removing one individual from power. A full-blown remodel of how we elect people is needed. The focus must be on preventing such situations from arising in the first place, rather than simply reacting to them after the fact.
Yet, despite all the challenges and doubts, the feeling persists that embracing impeachment is the least that can be done. It is the minimal response to what is perceived as a critical threat to the integrity of government. The need for consequences, for some form of accountability, cannot be dismissed. Ignoring perceived abuses of power risks normalizing them, making them seem acceptable.
Ultimately, the decision to embrace impeachment is a complex one. It involves weighing the potential benefits against the risks, considering the practical realities of the political landscape, and making a difficult calculation about the future of the nation. It represents a desperate attempt to shore up the foundations of American democracy. This is why it’s not just the Republicans, but all bystanders who are now being viewed as culpable. Even if the immediate outcome is uncertain, the act itself is seen as a necessary assertion of principle, a defense of the rule of law. And, maybe more importantly, a starting point for fundamental change.