To Impeach or not to Impeach, That is the Question

First of all, let’s just acknowledge outright that Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice by any reasonable interpretation of the law.  The Mueller report makes it very clear.  But Mueller also makes it clear that he doesn’t have the power to indict a sitting president.  So the question is whether congress, and more importantly in the long run, the people of the United States, believe that Donald Trump’s actions that have been publicized to date constitute ‘treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors’ as defined by our constitution and therefore should be impeached.

Richard Nixon was never impeached but the House Committee on the Judiciary recommended three articles of impeachment – obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt for congress.  He resigned before impeachment could be voted upon in congress.

The three articles that were recommended for Nixon also seem tailor-made for Trump.  It is instructive to remember that Nixon seemed likely to escape the impeachment process for most of 1973 and half of 1974.  His supporters in congress, with their antenna tuned as always to their own self-interest and survival, initially ridiculed the investigation as a ‘witch hunt’.  Sound familiar?  

But when the white house recordings were released and the veritable ‘smoking gun’ of Nixon’s complicity in the cover-up, as well as a pathetic litany of paranoiac and dark ramblings of a clearly corrupt and depraved president were on display, the game was up.  The noble Republican senators and congressmen, now scrambling for cover and expressing righteous indignation, made it clear that resignation and a Ford pardon were the best deal Nixon could get.

So where does that leave Trump?  The Republican-led Senate is clearly not going to convict him in an impeachment trial unless something new and more damning emerges.  The Mueller Report was unable to prove collusion with the Russians on election interference, so he is absolved in their eyes. 

To them, the fact that he obstructed justice, paid off prostitutes with finance funds just before the election, belittled and insulted his way past their colleagues to obtain the nomination, and is now proving to be the most chaotic and divisive President in at least 150 years is not nearly enough to justify the potential damage to the Republican power base that his downfall might cause.  On the contrary, they are doubling down on Donald. They see more energy and momentum in their core constituency than they have seen in years, even if it is a rather dark and ominous kind of energy.

Time will tell whether more obviously impeachable offenses waft out of the dung heap that lies in Donald Trump’s wake.  Would anyone honestly be surprised to find some incredibly egregious offense lurking there?  Even his most ardent political sycophants are no doubt holding their breath (as well as their nose).  The gift of rationalization is one of the great survival skills that politicians cultivate.

It is hard to be patient in the face of Trump’s assault on civility and decency, but patience may yet bear fruit. Trump’s army of lawyers, tax accountants and various other protectors will eventually make a mistake in their cover-ups and even the slightest sparkle of truth from his misdeeds may be enough to start the unravelling.  And once it starts, oh what a show that will be!

Climate Change and the Ostrich Syndrome

There is very strong evidence and almost total scientific consensus that climate change will have dramatic impact on planet earth over the next century.  We are already experiencing some of the first effects.  What we don’t know yet is how quickly these effects will multiply and how devastating they will be.  But up to now, the greater part of the world has put its head in the sand and hoped that either the science is wrong or that somehow we will survive.

The U.S. would be the logical choice to lead an international effort to meet this challenge, but climate change denial has become a litmus test for every conservative politician, and the idiot Trump has charged off in the exact opposite direction.

Climate change denial is beginning to weaken, as real-world events that are undeniably linked to climate change begin to pile up.  But most conservatives still believe that predictions of massive devastation in the future are exaggerated and part of the left’s political agenda. 

MIT’s publication Technology Review just had an issue with the front-page title ‘Welcome to Climate Change’.  The issue listed three phases of human response to climate change:

• Mitigation – the attempt to diminish or reverse the effects
• Adaptation – the attempt to adapt to the new climate conditions
• Suffering – the likely social, economic, political consequences and the human suffering that will ensue

MIT is not an institution known for hysteria or melodrama, but this issue of their technology magazine made my blood run cold.  The editor stated that the options for mitigation are running out rapidly and that the issue would focus more on adaptation and suffering.  The articles were, frankly, terrifying.

For most of my youth and early adulthood the specter of nuclear annihilation loomed over the world.  We envisioned a single day of cataclysmic fury that would end human civilization and leave at best a dystopian future of a limited number of homo sapiens.  The world breathed a sigh of relief when the cold war faded away and human beings appeared to be on a path to globalization with economic prosperity and sociopolitical harmony as real possibilities.

But now we face an even greater challenge, one that makes managing the nuclear standoff seem like child’s play.  China, the U.S., Europe and India are responsible for 27, 15, 10 and 7 percent of the world’s carbon emissions respectively, a total of 59%.  Growth in carbon emissions necessary to allow developing countries to reach a middle-class standard of living will certainly overwhelm any efforts by developed countries to reduce emissions unless massive international efforts are made to subsidize renewable energy projects in the poorer nations. 

To mitigate and manage the growing carbon emission crisis would take an international collaboration on a level that has never been achieved before.  Sadly, the international political landscape seems more inclined toward unilateralism than cooperation, so the prospects of any future international plan for mitigation are very slight.

What we will see instead is frighteningly portrayed in the MIT magazine and multiple other articles, as well as fictional predictions in various art forms.  As the slow, but accelerating climate ‘events’ begin to take their toll, nations will act in their self-interest to minimize the damage.  The biggest impacts will be felt first in the poorer nations.  The mass immigrations that we are seeing today will pale in comparison to the tsunamis of desperate people fleeing barren or flooded landscapes in the future.  The richer nations will build walls and become increasingly heartless in their response to world suffering and crises.  After all, they will be afflicted with their own costly wildfires, hurricanes, droughts and floods.

It doesn’t take much imagination to conjure up images of the devastation and the unraveling of civilization that will occur even under a fairly slow advance of climate change.  Is it possible that human beings will rise to the occasion and find a humane and dignified path through the conflagration?  It is often said that the worst of times can bring out the best in people.  But I fear that only applies in a single disaster event.  When the events roll in like endless breakers in a stormy sea, how steadfast will we be in our humanity?

Now would be the time for us to recognize that our ostrich complex is leading us to certain doom and destruction.  Now would be the time for us to put together a global plan to mitigate as much as possible, and then adapt to the changing climate.  Now would be the time for us to band together. 

And so it goes.

The Socialism Bogeyman

Politicians are masters at employing hyperbole, deception and simplistic generalizations to get noticed.  One of the more popular themes for conservatives these days is socialism.  With the ascendancy of several new charismatic and progressive house members, AOC being the most visible, conservatives have gone into a frenzy of name-calling, and their favorite is ‘socialist’.  A couple decades ago it would have been ‘communist’, but communism has lost its luster and relevance, so the right has pivoted to the next best bogeyman.

The primary definition of socialism is: ‘any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods’.  No serious politician is proposing true socialism for the U.S.  The use of the term is provocative and stirs up images of bomb-throwing radicals or soul-killing centralized economies.  Branding the progressive movement as ‘socialist’ is a cynical ploy to get publicity and to scare the highly impressionable public, who sadly don’t understand the details. 

A popular tactic these days is to invoke the horrors of Cuba or Venezuela as a way to discredit any progressive ideas.  This is an absurd comparison for many reasons.  Both of these countries’ ills have more to do with despotic leaders, authoritarian regimes and corruption than anything else.  One can point to multiple developing countries with so-called capitalist economies who are similarly devastated and broken.

Every industrialized country has some form of what is generally known as a ‘social democracy’.  The economic basis is capitalism with private ownership and entrepreneurship, but the government plays a role in the economy by regulating some aspects to provide a reasonable level of social justice and services and to avoid some of the historical pitfalls of raw capitalism.

The debate in modern politics is how much of a role the government should play in influencing the economy and how it should react to various economic trends or problems.  In the EU, many of the countries have embraced a stronger role for government to ensure that social services and wealth are more equitably distributed.  This is the model of government that many American progressives would like to see applied here. 

It can be argued that the EU countries have better health outcomes, longer life expectancy, a higher average standard of living, far less crime, shootings and incarceration, and a higher level of happiness than the U.S.  In my many trips to Germany I have been impressed by the spirit of social contract that most Germans feel.  They are willing to bear higher taxes and a more significant government role in their lives in the spirit of social harmony.

The U.S. clearly has a different mindset than Europe, for many reasons.  The ‘rugged individualism’ and outright fear and resentment of government that are classic American traits play against any spirit of social obligation.  And of course there are the complications of racial and ethnic disharmony that play a major role as well.

But there are challenges ahead that will not go away and will probably become more serious in short order – income inequality, under-employment, globalization, automation, big tech domination, a decaying infrastructure and climate change consequences to name a few.  These are not likely to be solved by the invisible hand of the free market.  And invoking the bogeyman of socialism at every attempt to address clear and present dangers in our society is an irresponsible and reckless ploy.