Early summer has brought a flurry of public discussion about a
topic previously confined to political margins -- the possibility of
impeaching President George W. Bush. The idea is still far from the
national media echo chamber, but some rumblings are now audible as
people begin to think about the almost unthinkable.
A few generations of Americans are apt to view impeachment as
an extreme step. One factor has been John F. Kennedy's widely read
1956 book "Profiles in Courage," which captured a Pulitzer Prize.
The book devoted a chapter to lauding Sen. Edmund G. Ross of Kansas,
whose "not guilty" vote prevented the Senate from convicting an
impeached president, Andrew Johnson, on May 26, 1868.
In real life, Ross -- who promptly put the squeeze on President
Johnson for a series of patronage appointments -- was hardly the
idealist that Kennedy's book cracked him up to be. But the chapter's
melodrama popularized a negative image of impeachment.
That outlook was especially strong for nearly 20 years, until a
few of President Richard Nixon's lies caught up with him. During
many months of the Watergate scandal, throughout late 1972 and 1973,
defenders of the president routinely blamed journalists. Republicans
insisted that the Washington Post and some other "liberal" news
outlets were just trying to make trouble for Nixon -- who, after
all, had recently won re-election in a landslide.
While the specter of impeachment grew, Nixon diehards insisted
that the president was being unfairly targeted -- until released
tapes of the chief executive made him politically indefensible. When
Nixon finally resigned in August 1974, the new president uttered a
phrase that instantly became famous. Gerald Ford told the nation:
"Our long national nightmare is over."
That's how the news media have tended to portray impeachment,
with coverage largely presenting it as an ordeal that involves a lot
of attorneys and vast piles of legal documents. But impeachment is
not really about law or even about evidence. It's all about
politics.
As a political weapon, impeachment will be used to the extent
that the president's foes believe they can get away with it. While
the Constitution speaks of "high crimes and misdemeanors," that
provision offers scant clarity about standards for impeachment. In
recent decades, we have seen it utilized as an appropriate tool
(against Nixon) and as an instrument of political overkill (against
Bill Clinton). In both instances, the media climate determined the
possibilities and impacts of impeachment.
In general, the punditocracy is averse to the option of
impeachment and reflexively dismisses any such suggestion. Misuses
of presidential power -- and outright mendacity in the service of
policy objectives -- are political realities, accepted or even
avidly supported as long as they remain within vaguely customary
limits. Few editorial writers or other commentators want to risk
seeming too far ahead of the media curve by suggesting that the
latest presidential deceptions might rise to the level of
impeachable offenses.
At the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, in 1987, journalists
frequently made excuses for President Ronald Reagan. There was much
media talk about the imperative of avoiding another "failed
presidency" scarcely a dozen years after Watergate. On "NBC Nightly
News," the venerable broadcaster John Chancellor declared: "Nobody
wants another Nixon." Chicago Tribune editor James Squires cautioned
reporters not to repeat the "excesses" of Watergate. And the
relative restraint of the Washington Post and other outlets was
symbolized by the fact that the Post's publisher, Katharine Graham,
often socialized with the president's wife, Nancy Reagan, and
publicly touted her as a dear friend.
Democrats in Congress did little to challenge the demagoguery
of fast-talking Jimmy Stewart impersonator Oliver North -- a former
Reagan team operative who was greatly assisted by the news media.
Lieutenant Colonel North held "an entire nation enthralled" during
his congressional testimony, Ted Koppel told ABC viewers. On NBC,
Chancellor called it "a terrific performance" that "played in
Peoria."
During the Iran-Contra hearings on Capitol Hill, journalists
frequently reported as though the proceedings would be inconclusive
unless a Perry Mason style of ironclad proof emerged. Longtime
political analyst Elizabeth Drew commented on the irony that people
were "searching for a smoking gun in a room filled with smoke."
Midway through 2003, there's plenty of smoke as clear evidence
emerges that President Bush and several of his top foreign policy
officials lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the
lead-up to the war. In this context, impeachment is a reasonable
idea. But with Congress run by Republicans -- and with news media
all too deferential to entrenched power -- the chances of a serious
investigation in Washington are very slim.
___________________________________
Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media
Didn't Tell You." For an excerpt and other information, go to:
www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target
