11.8

When what is Right is not what is Smart

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer...

- John F. Kennedy, 1958

In our decision making, we are forever caught between then ends and the means. We need to accomplish things - but, in order to be truly successful, we need to accomplish things in a particular way. As an old professor of mine used to repeat, it’s not what you do, it's the way that you do it. I think of her and her refrain as I ponder this impeachment proceeding; I think of the ends, and I think of the means.

Let's start with the ends.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible aims in pursuing impeachment. Nancy Pelosi’s rhetoric is one of moral justification: we don’t want to do it, but our duty compels us. Under this philosophy, the fact that impeachment is the right thing to do matters more than whether it ends up being the politically expedient thing to do. But, if all this is is just a facade - as many on the Right believe - then the aim must be political. Under this philosophy, the Democrats believe that impeachment will lead to either an improvement of odds in the 2020 election or an outright removal of Trump from office (the latter is clearly the aim for the ‘impeach the motherfucker’ members of the left’s coalition).

Of course, as in most things, reality is surely a combination of both sides: it seems likely that many Democrats feel that impeachment is both morally right and politically savvy. It is difficult for me to muster much of an argument against the former - whether it rises to the level of impeachment, Trump’s Ukrainian campaign is at least worthy of investigation. But there are clearly a number of folks on the left who are concerned that the impeachment hearings might actually work against the Democrat’s political goals.

It’s worth noting this concern one year out from November, 2020. Whatever the result ends up being, it seems likely that we’ll connect the dots from this moment to that outcome. If the ultimate goal of the Democrats is to win back control of the executive and legislative branches, then they ought to seriously ponder the question: is doing what is right also doing what is smart?

I’ll leave you with an alternative scenario, just food for thought: suppose that Democrats, instead of proceeding with vote to begin the impeachment proceeding, had unified behind a clear message. They could have said,

‘We feel that there is undeniable evidence of wrongdoing in Trump’s campaign to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine. Many of our members feel that this clearly rises to the level of an impeachable offense. We would like to open an impeachment inquiry, because we feel that the American people deserve to know what happened here - they deserve to know whether their President broke the law, or even acted in a way that was unfaithful to his oath of office. We ask our Republican colleagues to join us in this investigation - this has to be a bipartisan effort, and the American people deserve the truth.’

I suggest that this strategy has the potential to solve the problem of competing aims outlined above. This perhaps unconventional move would put pressure on the Republicans and would generate interest in an investigation without making the Democrats look like politically motivated actors. Republicans by contrast would seem politically motivated in their obstruction. Meanwhile, the Democrats could hammer, over and over, that they think an impeachment inquiry is vital, but that they need Republican support. The beauty would be this: The Democrats would naturally claim the moral high ground even as they make a smart political decision.

A rethinking of the means in order to get to the right ends. It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it.

Harold

November 8th, 2019