1 2 > 
 
   
 

#80- The Unraveling A conversation with David Frum

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5635
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 June 2017 06:04
 

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with David Frum about political partisanship, recent security leaks, Trump’s foreign policy, the Russia investigation, Kathy Griffin’s joke, and other topics.

#80- The Unraveling A conversation with David Frum

This thread is for listeners’ comments.

 
cjphoto
 
Avatar
 
 
cjphoto
Total Posts:  5
Joined  23-08-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2017 12:35
 

Here is another civil and smart discourse between two men who think very clearly about important issues. Sam states that listeners complain about Trump appearing too often in his podcasts. Trump is so profoundly affecting everything we eat, breathe, touch, and feel, that not discussing him or his shenanigans would be irresponsible.

Sam, please keep on keeping on.

 
DataX
 
Avatar
 
 
DataX
Total Posts:  3
Joined  04-06-2017
 
 
 
04 June 2017 13:11
 

I really liked this conversation. My one concern is when Sam asked about: when will the left stop trying to destroy Trump and get themselves together?
I feel like the Democrats and DNC wasted this election. It’s like when an unprepared Mike Tyson went in and lost to an overweight Buster Douglas. So far, the DNC has gotten a pass while we focus on Russia and Trump. It would be like Mike Tyson taking the beating from Douglas, then going and complaining about whatever Douglas did right.

The 2-party political system is in shambles. The GOP is in a civil war. The Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to give away more elections. We’ve got 70 and 80-yr old career politicians making legislation around technologies that they don’t understand. And I agree with Frum that we aren’t ever going back to “normal.” But WHERE are we going? Or, are we just interested in color commentary on Donald Trump and Russia?

Trump is like the creaky floorboard that should be a warning that we’ve got termites. Do we complain about the floorboard until the whole livingroom collapses into the basement?

 
Dan Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Dan Williams
Total Posts:  2
Joined  04-06-2017
 
 
 
04 June 2017 19:34
 

The one sane, intelligent Trump “supporter” I know refers me to Angelo Codevilla at the Claremont Review of Books. (I put “supporter” in quotation marks because, last time we talked, the most favorable thing he could say about the man was “Well, I don’t think he’s the devil incarnate.”)

Here is a generous selection of quotes from Codevilla’s pre-election polemic “After the Republic”:

“Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back.”

“[...] in today’s America, those in power basically do what they please. Executive orders, phone calls, and the right judge mean a lot more than laws. They even trump state referenda. Over the past half-century, presidents have ruled not by enforcing laws but increasingly through agencies that write their own rules, interpret them, and punish unaccountably—the administrative state.”

“In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. ... These cronies’ shared social and intellectual identity stems from the uniform education they have received in the universities. Because disdain for ordinary Americans is this ruling class’s chief feature, its members can be equally certain that all will join in celebrating each, and in demonizing their respective opponents.”

“Thankfully, an enlightened minority exists with the expertise and the duty to disperse the religious obscurantism, the hypocritical talk of piety, freedom, and equality, which excuses Americans’ racism, sexism, greed, and rape of the environment. As we progressives take up our proper responsibilities, Americans will no longer live politically according to their prejudices; they will be ruled administratively according to scientific knowledge.” [obviously he’s ventriloquizing ironic here]

“Temperamentally conservative, these constituencies had been most attached to the Constitution and been counted as the bedrock of stability. They are not yet wholly convinced that there is little left to conserve. What they want, beyond an end to the ruling class’s outrages, has never been clear. This is not surprising, given that the candidates who appeal to their concerns do so with mere sound bites. Hence they chose as the presidential candidate of the nominal opposition party the man who combined the most provocative anti-establishment sounds with reassurance that it won’t take much to bring back good old America: Donald Trump. “

“Trump’s slogan—‘make America great again’—is the broadest, most unspecific, common denominator of non-ruling-class Americans’ diverse dissatisfaction with what has happened to the country.”

“Because it is difficult to imagine a Trump presidency even thinking about something so monumental as replacing an entire ruling elite, much less leading his constituency to accomplishing it, electing Trump is unlikely to result in a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction. Continuing pretty much on the current trajectory under the same class will further fuel revolutionary sentiments in the land all by itself. Inevitable disappointment with Trump is sure to add to them.”

I haven’t heard much of this debate in Sam’s podcasts (though I haven’t listened to all of them). Maybe it’s too firebrand to be taken seriously. Maybe the closest was the roasting of HRC with Andrew Sullivan, specifically on how Bill Clinton came to power in a decade when Democrats, after 12 years without controlling the executive, really believed that stupid Americans had to be lied to in order to vote for them. This picture of Democrats sometimes bleeds into critiques of Obama being “out of touch with the people” (was it Warren who said that?), though Sullivan was careful to distinguish Obama’s sincerity from Clintonian vacuity.

What Codevilla says about “the administrative state” has interesting implications. In his latest essay in CRB, he says, for instance, that a loosening of Federal power would entail that cities have the right to declare themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Of course the Federal government can respond by restricting funding. Seems reasonable. What Codevilla’s point big is, is that the Federal government and “the administrative state” represent a form of oligarchy. The bureaucrats impose regulations and laws, written by a handful of people that affect the lives of millions who are quite different from them, subject to little oversight and accountability. One of the struggles of a large, diverse nation, no doubt. But how do we keep such a diverse country together? Not by the imposition of power top-down-wise, he says, which is sure to end is some kind of revolt or revolution.

I’m just trying to understand the reactionary mindset here, skipping the question of Trump, who we can agree is a monster. Is Republicanism, in the original sense of the term, reactionary in the age of identity politics and behavioral science? (i.e. the “debunking” of the Enlightenment construct of the rational, sovereign individual.) So there’s the theoretical problem of justifying Republicanism. Is it just another zombie ideology leftover from the latter half of the second millennium, or is there a way to resuscitate it that’s not totally reactionary? Should we care? If we can organize society on rational grounds, and our picture of rationality is changing, shouldn’t our political system evolve with it?

Obviously Trump is the biggest fish we need to fry; but “21st century Republicanism” (different from the Republican Party) is fundamental question to think about. It’d be cool to hear a conversation about it, too. Will the U.S. and China look more and more alike in their modes of governance in the 21st century?

[ Edited: 04 June 2017 19:39 by Dan Williams]
 
LordranBound
 
Avatar
 
 
LordranBound
Total Posts:  13
Joined  28-12-2012
 
 
 
05 June 2017 04:56
 
cjphoto - 04 June 2017 12:35 PM

.. Trump is so profoundly affecting everything we eat, breathe, touch, and feel, that not discussing him or his shenanigans would be irresponsible.

That is the best example of Trump Derangement Syndrome I’ve ever heard.  I hope you feel better soon.

 
NL.
 
Avatar
 
 
NL.
Total Posts:  5654
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
05 June 2017 06:39
 
DataX - 04 June 2017 01:11 PM

But WHERE are we going? Or, are we just interested in color commentary on Donald Trump and Russia?


Oooo, ooo (raises hand and waves frantically) I know! B, I pick B!! Horrible violence and slow, grueling work of the surrounding world or the Trump and Russia show? No contest. B!


Ok, I’m kidding, but I do get why the latter is more appealing. Trump has brought reality tv drama to the government (I used to have ‘read the news’ at the bottom of my daily goals list, as it was the equivalent of eating broccoli - now I’ve taken it off because I don’t have to remind myself, I’m glued to Google News, like “What drama happened today?!”). Putin is like some mystic hybrid creation right out of a Star Wars movie - an empath dictator human rights violator but usually for utilitarian reasons who seems trained in the use of The Force or something (people say “Oh it’s the KGB thing!”, but there were tens of thousands of KGB agents, I think most of them were dull bureaucrats - if they were all that charismatic Russia would have taken over the world long ago). But if you look at Putin, there’s this weird pattern where almost everyone who talks to him one on one - from Megyn Kelly to Oliver Stone to Charlie Rose to Platon to Bush - comes away feeling like they really connected with him or ‘got’ him, even though they say divergent things. Kelly said he liked the way she challenged him; Stone that he respected the background work he did; Rose thought he’d never been as open with any American interviewer as he’d been with him;  Platon thought they connected on an intimate human level about things like music; and Bush had the famous “soul” line. (Since he seems to project people’s own personality back at them, perhaps I should not take it as a compliment to myself that I see him as a big snuggly bear who sometimes bites people and then you have to be like “Bad bear!!!” - but nonetheless, as a meditator I am so intrigued about whether that kind of thing comes from his judo background.)


Anyways. Rest of the world = hard work, grueling, boring, sad. TV celebrities = entertaining, dramatic, intrigue. Being serious, of course I agree that the hard work side is important, but I think it’s good to be realistic about why people aren’t just going to gravitate towards that and set realistic goals accordingly. “Read the news” is no longer on my to do list, “Read journal articles for work” still is, because I know that one of those things I’m going to have to force myself to do.

[ Edited: 05 June 2017 09:33 by NL.]
 
 
GBD
 
Avatar
 
 
GBD
Total Posts:  1
Joined  05-06-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 07:24
 

Sam - keep returning to discussions of Trump from time to time. To stop would be a sign of reluctant acceptance. I agree with Frum that there is no going back. The question is where are we going? If we stand by idly, clucking and tsk-tsking, we deserve whatever transpires. People of principle have to actively engage and write the future. Here’s hoping we take advantage of such an obvious cartoonish, narcissistic demagogue in Trump that we strengthen our democratic institutions and increase civic engagement to protect us from a more savvy, truly capable demagogue in the future.

 
kpb04003
 
Avatar
 
 
kpb04003
Total Posts:  2
Joined  20-03-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 09:45
 
GBD - 05 June 2017 07:24 AM

Sam - keep returning to discussions of Trump from time to time. To stop would be a sign of reluctant acceptance. I agree with Frum that there is no going back. The question is where are we going? If we stand by idly, clucking and tsk-tsking, we deserve whatever transpires. People of principle have to actively engage and write the future. Here’s hoping we take advantage of such an obvious cartoonish, narcissistic demagogue in Trump that we strengthen our democratic institutions and increase civic engagement to protect us from a more savvy, truly capable demagogue in the future.

I wholeheartedly agree. I listen to these podcasts for well reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful discussions on complex topics. To complain about mentioning Trump in any podcast is akin to complain about discussing religion in any podcast. When discussing the issues of scientific progress and the pursuit of knowledge, there are no greater threats to both of these than Donald Trump and organized religion.

He encourages millions of people to doubt and distrust experts, to rebel against the scientific method and embrace specious rhetoric and outright lies. The fight is no longer on a factual stage but on a ideological one. Similar to religion, he, and by extension the republican party that supports him, cannot exisit in a rational or factual society only in a reactive, surface level, tribalistic society. Both need to conjure up fear and distrust to build and strengthen their coalitions. These are the central threats to eductation, knowledge and safety in our society today.

 
tertullian
 
Avatar
 
 
tertullian
Total Posts:  3
Joined  04-06-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 10:07
 

Sam announces at the beginning of this anti-Trump podcast with David Frum:  “I’m trying to reach people who see this differently, I’m not merely attempting to preach to the choir.”  Here are Harris and Frum (in no particular order) trying to preach beyond the choir:  Trump supporters are from “Trumpistan.” (Harris)  “It is as though [Trump’s] only goal is to diminish our stature in the world.” (Harris)  Trump seeks an America that is “selfish, isolated, brutish, domineering, and driven by immediate appetites rather than ideals or even long term interests.” (Frum).  Trump is “lickspittle to the Saudi regime.” (Harris)  A Trump supporter is someone whose “loyalty to America is less than his loyalty to his ethnicity or ideology.” (Frum)  A favorite Frumism:  “The Trump Administration has secrets but no mysteries.”  This mantra allows discussions in which we can know that Trump has done some bad thing (take your pick) even if we have no actual proof.  Fox News is a place where “indecency is tolerated.” (Frum)  Any well-informed person who voted for or defends Trump has “characterological issues” (Frum) (I think that’s the same as “character issues”, but maybe not).  Trump is “Putin’s guy” (Frum).  The Administration has “no ethical center at all.” (Frum).  The President and his family are using the Presidency to “enrich themselves on a massive scale.” (Frum) (that’s a secret, but not a mystery, I guess).  The anti-Trump Resistance, which has been seeking impeachment literally since the day Trump was inaugurated, if not before, represents “a gratifying level of civic engagement”  on behalf of the “sacredness of legality” (Frum).

This is preaching beyond the choir?

 
Kris Moore
 
Avatar
 
 
Kris Moore
Total Posts:  3
Joined  05-06-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 10:32
 

Thank you, Sam and David for being reasonable, well-informed, and participating in this public debate. Don’t stop talking about the frightening Trump phenomenom. I agree that this is a critical time in our history and the world’s history. Keep being reasonable and inviting subject matter experts.

 
guymella
 
Avatar
 
 
guymella
Total Posts:  4
Joined  06-07-2016
 
 
 
05 June 2017 11:38
 

I somewhat supported trump. i didnt vote for him, but when he won i kinda celebrated. I figured he was just going to get in the control room and turn every knob and dial as far to the right as you would expect from an untrained monkey whos favorite thing is blinking red lights and alarm sounds. Of course it might be bad and chaotic but at least we would find out if those controls in the control room are attached to anything. spoiler alert… they arent. everything that you are laying on trumps shoulder and decrying him for; are precisely identical to the mainstream republican wish list for the last 30 years. “TRUMP is the worst thing ever to happen to politics because he is doing… Exactly what run of the mill republicans have been advocating for as long as we can remember.”

he is destroying the world by ...pulling out of the Paris accords exactly the way that fossil fuel industry and carbon polluters have been paying republicans and democrats to push for the last 50 years. no but its trumps fault for signing the order that was probably drafted decades ago.

he is banning Muslims… based on Obamas recommendations.

trump has just become a one-off policy dump that the establishment has been intending to enact for decades but never had a one term outrage and distraction machine to blame it all on. trump is the worst thing ever, because he is doing exactly what the richest most powerful people on the planet want, but never had the political climate and scapegoat to get away with it.

yeah! lets sacrifice that scapegoat to appease the god of public opinion and get back to business as usual.

based on everything that has happened so far in his presidency, i am forced to conclude that the only thing that trump has the power to abuse ...is twitter.

trump has proven himself to be a powerless shill of the republican establishment. which is fine… im sure that many people who voted for him really just wanted one of two things: throw a massive wrench in the gears of a corrupt and broken system, or find out once and for all that no person (even they are president) will ever have the power to “drain the swamp”.

well we got both.

we really busted up the entire election system. But after the election was over we found out that nothing has changed whatsoever. everything is still corrupt and broken and a whole bunch of bad things are happening in this country while the media is reporting on mean tweets from Donald trump about politics that nobody with half a brain should ever care about… so this is literally identical to Obama administration in every way. except the corruption has red stickers on it instead of a blue stickers.

Democrats: “Russia is just influencing our election trying to push a global narrative that all democracy is broken and peoples votes dont really count because the mainstream establishment is just playing both sides against eachother. therefore we should negate your vote and put power squarely back in the hands of mainstream establishment.”

Republicans: “We feel like we need to distance ourselves from trump because his ideas and policies are a little extreme. so we reserve the right to do something drastic as soon as he finishes enacting all the unpopular policies we have been pushing for the last half century.”

Media: “look at the raging dumpster fire spewing out of this crazy guys ( who we have televised more in the last two years than any person ever) twitter account. tweets can be dangerous. pay no attention to the business as usual behind the curtain.”

the current attention economy is fueled by outrage. Donald trump is an outrage gem refined in the furnace of reality television. your attention is so consumed by this obviously powerless moron (who is obviously doing exactly as he is told) that you literally cant focus on anything else.

congratulations… you have taken the bait… you are now the new bait.

 
Kris Moore
 
Avatar
 
 
Kris Moore
Total Posts:  3
Joined  05-06-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 12:08
 

I think what we have learned is exactly the opposite of what the previous poster said:

“I figured he was just going to get in the control room and
turn every knob and dial as far to the right as you would expect from an
untrained monkey whos favorite thing is blinking red lights and alarm
sounds. Of course it might be bad and chaotic but at least we would find out
if those controls in the control room are attached to anything. spoiler
alert… they arent.”

Actions have consequences. The controls are connected to real institutions run by real people. This president is challenging the importance of NATO, pulled us out of the Paris Accord, is dismantling the EPA, the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is telling the world that globalism is only about winning and getting more for individual players to hell with cooperating with other nations. He wants to return healthcare to the marketplace and has demonstrated that he is selfish, crude, misogynistic, racist, and incompetent. He wants to return us to the 1930’s. If you don’t think this will have any lasting effect, stick around.

 
guymella
 
Avatar
 
 
guymella
Total Posts:  4
Joined  06-07-2016
 
 
 
05 June 2017 13:39
 
Kris Moore - 05 June 2017 12:08 PM

I think what we have learned is exactly the opposite of what the previous poster said:

This president is challenging the importance of NATO, pulled us out of the Paris Accord, is dismantling the EPA, the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is telling the world that globalism is only about winning and getting more for individual players to hell with cooperating with other nations…

yeah… so a bunch of red lights and alarm sounds.. but so far nothing has happened. he put the republican parties first choice in charge of these organizations and they have done literally nothing except publicly pander to the republican base and make sure that the massive entrenched money suck of a bureaucracy will be giving paychecks to republican party donators instead of democratic party donators.

challenging the importance of NATO? the EU wants to dissolve nato because they have plans to build their own military and NATO is the primary reason that they dont need to. WHAT legislation has trump enacted to actually dissolve NATO? he didnt. he just cried about it. and now your crying back.

Trump pulls out of the Paris accord. Clinton pulls out of the Kyoto protocol. oil companies win as they have been under both democrats and republicans for the last century. but yeah… the last century of america putting oil companies first is all trumps fault. thanks obama… i mean trump. i forgot we switched that out a few months ago.

dismantling the EPA. just like the oil companies have been advocating since its inceptions. thanks trump
ruining the department of education just like republicans have been pushing for 50 years. thanks trump
failing to appoint staff to the state department right away. whats the difference?
Proposing a cut to the HUD budget that never happens. You are kinda making my point for me.
favoring national governments over globalist corporations. globalist corporations over individuals and individuals over anti government ideologies… again you are making my point for me.

our society is crumbling into a pile of rubble under the weight of endless corruption, rent-seeking, entrenched self serving interests and a press whos only job is to run interference for the powers that be. But you are complaining because somebody is threatening to stop adding to your favorite part of the rubble pile.

the Paris accord is nothing more than a publicity stunt. the EPA only goes after small non-entities because the big polluters have more lawyers and get away with everything anyway. NATO is just a foreign exchange program for our military interests. the education department has overseen the biggest drop in average education quality in the history of the world. HUD is just a subsidized piggy bank for urban renewal and gentrification investors. the state department is just a collection of glorified messengers who tell other countries how its going to be while crashing their parties and ingratiating themselves with local prostitutes and drug dealers.  globalism cant be stopped. not even by mean tweets from the president.

but go ahead keep crying about. did you know that president Obama signed into law the “Monsanto protection act” a provision in a bill that protects Monsanto from being sued by farmers they have defrauded.

did you know that there is a field near Reno Nevada filled with cold war era tanks that the army doesn’t want. the purpose of the field is to allow the tanks to rust. so that the refurbishment plant in Ohio can continue to upgrade and refurbish these tanks that the army decommissioned 20 years ago.

did you know that your bank has changed its “payment in default” policy. so that inter-bank loans must be paid first (obligations to other banks), investment bonds must be paid second (obligations to hedge funds and investors), and customer deposits will be paid third, if there is any money left over. its called a “bail in” the bank can confiscate the accounts of its customers in order to avoid going into bankruptcy. the brilliant part is that FDIC insurance will only pay out to the depositors, if the bank actually goes into bankruptcy. this means that during the next financial crisis the banks will legally confiscate most of the pensions in the country to pay off their bad investments. and the government has no choice but to bail out the pensions and savings accounts of the citizens… obviously not a bank bail out, its a pension bail out.

but go ahead cry about a 6 billion dollar “proposed” cut to housing and urban development. we will handle that 20 trillion dollar pension bail out after you get your fill of petty outrage bites from a reality television star.

 
_Sven_
 
Avatar
 
 
_Sven_
Total Posts:  8
Joined  22-05-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 14:48
 

Generally I’m not a big fan of Sams strong focus on Trump. Mostly because I appreciate Sams discussions which are less entangled with day to day politics very much and allocating more time on Trump implies less time can be spent on other interesting topics. I also think there’s plenty of liberal media out there which covers the trump-issues he raises fairly well, which can’t be said about the in-depth discussions we’re missing out on.

This episode an exception though. It’s the first (of the recent) Trump episodes I’ve actually enjoyed. Perhaps it’s because the topic is discussed with a former government insider or because Sams interview partner has been a Republican - likely a mix of both. Either way the interview with Frum has been way more interesting than the liberal circle-jerk of the previous episodes. If I want to listen to people deluding themselves into “Trump will be gone by Christmas”-phantasies, I’ll tune into the pod save america podcast. At times it felt like Sam has been just about to jump onto that bandwagon as well, and I’m glad to see he seems to have taken a couple of steps back from that edge by now. The Tyranny episode has been fairly hysterical too. At least in a comparison to the rise of Hitler there are quite some core-elements neither present nor in sight under trumps rule.

Now, as Sam Harris is committed to tackle the Trump issue, I’d like to propose a topic which concerns both trumps campaign and IT-Ethics -  The impact of Algorithms on the Distribution of news with a focus on how Trump and his team (ab)use them. As far as I know there is no public in-depth discussion on this issue and Sam is probably the ideal host for it. Here’s an article which covers an aspect of this topic: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/how-the-trump-russia-data-machine-games-google-to.html

 
_Sven_
 
Avatar
 
 
_Sven_
Total Posts:  8
Joined  22-05-2017
 
 
 
05 June 2017 15:09
 
DataX - 04 June 2017 01:11 PM

I feel like the Democrats and DNC wasted this election. It’s like when an unprepared Mike Tyson went in and lost to an overweight Buster Douglas. So far, the DNC has gotten a pass while we focus on Russia and Trump. It would be like Mike Tyson taking the beating from Douglas, then going and complaining about whatever Douglas did right.

It’s a shame the DNC apparently hasn’t heard the wake-up-call, or at least doesn’t seem to be very enthusiastic about making some fundamental changes, so those millions who felt the burn in 2016 can feel at home in the democratic party. So far the DNC seems to be committed to the good old top-down power politics, which I perceive to be a far more significant cause for the democratic loss than any Russian meddling. People yearned for change and the DNC presented the embodiment of business as usual nonetheless.

 
hsage
 
Avatar
 
 
hsage
Total Posts:  1
Joined  05-08-2009
 
 
 
05 June 2017 15:46
 

I disagree with David Frum’s suggestion that there must be criminality involved for impeachment. The first attempt to impeach a president was of John Tyler. (Few Americans are aware of this.) From my own history web site:  “Whigs also introduced an impeachment resolution over the issue of Tyler’s ‘legislation usurpation’ based on the belief, despite Jackson’s legacy, that the president may veto bills only on constitutional grounds. The argument was rooted in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution: ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ The Covode (Impeachment) Resolution failed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 127-84, meaning that if only 22 votes had gone the other way, Tyler would have been impeached. He would probably not have been convicted by the Senate, however, since that requires a two-thirds majority.”

The case of Andrew Johnson was similar. Johnson was the only Southern Democrat who did not endorse secession. Abraham Lincoln asked him to join him on the “Union Party” ticket in 1964. In the 1866 election Republicans won about 3/4 majorities in both houses. (Johnson was drunk in public while out campaigning for Democrats, which helped the Republicans.) Johnson persisted in vetoing bills, and although they were quickly overridden, the Republicans decided that he had become a nuisance. They therefore passed the “Tenure of Office Act,” which said that the president could not fire a cabinet member approved by the Senate without Senate approval, clearly a violation of the Constitution. They knew that Johnson would veto the act, and when he did, they charged him with violation of the act. He missed being convicted by one vote, almost certainly because of the fact that the Republicans didn’t want Senator Ben Wade of Ohio to become the president. When asked if the impeachment was a political act, Senator Sumner said, “Of course it was!”

Finally, I would cite what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #65 about impeachment. In referring to the judicial character of the Senate regarding impeachments, Hamilton wrote: “A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

In other words, all that is required for impeachment is “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” No criminality in the legal sense is required. All that is necessary, in other words, is the collective will of the House and Senate.

[ Edited: 05 June 2017 15:48 by hsage]
 
 1 2 >