We may be part of a similar political phenomenon, though politics is only its location and not totally its cause. It may be so powerful that it can't be stopped until it plays itself out. Though it's not clear where it will end up, it is obvious where it is going.
Right now we might call it the revolt of the reactionary right, a kind of apocalyptic extremism pushing the US into political crisis, and perhaps constitutional crisis.
Republicans in Congress, in some states and in the rabid right media are converging on one point: the presidency. Over the past weekend, House Speaker John Banal repeated his demand that House Republicans sue President Obama over still unspecified actions in violation of his legal mandates. On Tuesday it was reported that the House will make a circus out of this for the next three weeks, scheduling a vote perhaps hours before the House goes on one of its frequent recesses.
A GOPer Senate candidate in Iowa upped the ante by accusing President Obama of being a dictator. And for some the lawsuit is not enough--they want Congress to impeach President Obama. That demand was connected to a kind of political threat not so viciously made since the days of Joe McCarthy when Sarah Palin said
"we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment."
Jonathan Bernstein wrote a perceptive post that outlines the growing pressure within the Republican party to push for impeachment, the unprecedented nature of this proposal, and the likely bad outcome for Republicans and the country.
In a comment on that post, I wondered if Banal's lawsuit was to short-circuit the calls for impeachment, though some observers thought it was to be a kind of warm-up for impeachment. On Wednesday Banal said he "disagreed" with the calls for impeachment so far. On Thursday the lawsuit (itself unprecedented) was unveiled--it focuses on President Obama's "failure to enforce the Affordable Care Act" as passed by Congress--the same act that Republicans have voted a zillion times to repeal. And a law that (on the same day) is proving to be working.
Update: The commentary on Friday had to do with whether the courts would find that Congress has the "standing" to even sue. Here's Jonathan Bernstein on that. There's also the likelihood that this could go on for more years than President Obama has in office. BUT (and this is just my conjecture), an early decision by a court that the House of Representatives does not have standing and therefore the suit is thrown out, and the only remedy available is impeachment: this could lead to a renewed and even more frenzied impeachment push.
For her fiery call, Sarah Palin received a certain amount of ridicule (including Borowitz: Americans Unhappy To Be Reminded That Sarah Palin Still Exists.) But it is not really clear that this is over. Some Republicans may feel President Obama's tepid poll numbers, and the ongoing if premature debate over the success or failure of his presidency, create a political context sympathetic to their actions. But the poll numbers are changeable (when the polls aren't bogus) and the debate has two sides.
For example there's the position that Obama did what any Democrat would have done as President (Bernstein has proposed this.) Jonathan Chiat disagrees. He notes how only President Obama's steadfastness in sticking with the comprehensive Affordable Care Act when others in his administration were ready to cave and accept an increment or two, kept the bill together long enough for passage.
I would add another example. Both Bernstein and Chiat agree that any Dem would have proposed a big stimulus package. But the difference may be in what was in that package. I'm not sure all other Dems would have insisted that a chunk of spending be devoted to embryonic clean energy projects. Yet that seeding was important and possibly crucial to the tremendous growth in clean energy we see today, to the point that it is a real economic as well as ecologic force.
No comments:
Post a Comment