He was impeached for the speeches in question
Interesting. One of the articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson was his habit of screaming vulgar insults at people.
The last president I know of who compared himself to the Messiah was Andrew Johnson. He was impeached for the speeches in question.
Here is Jeffrey Tulis’s account of those Johnson speeches, from his incredible book, The Rhetorical Presidency.
…deny that he was a traitor as others alleged, attack some part of the audience (depending on the kinds of heckles he received), defend his use of the veto, attack Congress as a body and single out particular congressmen (occasionally denouncing them as traitors for not supporting his policies), compare himself to Christ and offer himself as a martyr, and finally conclude by declaring his closeness to the people and appealing for their support.
Trump is even worse, but still, the resemblance is close.
Wittes suggests we pay special attention to the 10th article of impeachment. The Senate has them all:
ARTICLE 10.That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing…
Ok now that is a perfect match.
Wow. That pretty much proves what I’ve always suspected. The Founding Fathers with their now nebulous checks and balances, just couldn’t conceive of a society in which crass and vulgar behaviour in a President and Gentleman would be tolerated, let alone cheered on.
Yep, the precedents are all laid out like a red carpet, inviting or even demanding impeachment. And the Dems continue to do nothing.
I can see why some Dems do not want to start impeachment. The cold hard calculus is that until the Senate is theirs they will fail to evict Trump from the oval office. In the meantime they will activate his already rabid base and all government will cease as the GOP retreats behind walls. Admittedly that’s not a lot worse than what’s happening now.
I agree that the moral high ground is better served by starting impeachment proceedings. But politics isn’t just about, or even necessarily about morals. It’s about the art of what is possible. Dem supporters are already angry and motivated to get rid of Trump. Are they going to be any more motivated by impeachment? If impeachment is initiated and defeated before the next election, will that demoralise and splinter the opposition?
I want Trump impeached and disgraced. He deserves it (at the very least). The experienced colder heads on the Dems side no doubt want him gone as well, but in their judgement they clearly have more to loose with a failed or uncertain impeachment. I suspect if Trump wins in 2020 and the Dems manage to hold Congress but not gain the Senate, then impeachment proceedings will be started as a way of disrupting Trumps second term. If by some miracle the Dems win both the Senate and Congress, Trump would be gone by lunchtime. That’s not going to happen (sadly).
Forgot to add, as noted by many many people. The biggest problem is that McConnell and his craven GOP colleagues in the Senate would rather destroy the Union than loose power. If they have to put up with Trump and disavow everything they ever previously campaigned on to keep power, that’s precisely what they will and have done. They are what the Founding fathers never foresaw.
@Rob
#3
Except that it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict, which means 67 Senators. It’s unlikely that the Dems get that many. Unless some Republicans go along, Trump isn’t being removed that way.
Rob, I think that’s a very cogent analysis. The only problem I see is the constitutional question. If Trump isn’t brought to heel, then his shredding of the constitution will show everyone they can do as they wish. We are basically saying, Okay, break all sorts of laws, violate the constitution, as long as you have 20% of the voters that are angry enough and armed enough, we won’t do anything to you.
The worst of it is, I don’t think we can fix it by impeachment, because when the Senate acquits, or fails to follow through, he will crow about his vindication, the witch hunt, the fake news, and the base will eat it up. The rest of the country will retreat with their tails between their legs.
We have set up the precedent for a future of lawlessness. Suddenly I’m glad to be closer to the end than the beginning of my life.
Colin, yeah, when I referred to ‘win’ that was in the back of my mind. My guess is the Dems might pick up 2-3 GOP senators, but possibly not even that.
Iknklast, thanks, but cogent might have been overly praising (especially with so many spelling and syntax errors).
I agree and sympathise with the ‘impeach because constitution protection’ argument. Likely best case: failed government and mass social unrest and conflict at a time of economic and social uncertainty. Who comes out on top? The angels or the devils? Worst case? A Bloody civil war?
New Zealand isn’t far enough away to be unscathed by either of those. I don’t have children, but I fear deeply for the comfort and security of other people children.