Friday, November 01, 2019 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Impeachment: a good system isn't enough when the people suck

The Democratic majority in the Congress started the "impeachment probe" against Trump. The House voted 232-196 in favor of the terribly harmful move. All Republicans were against, along with two Democrats; the rest of Democrats was voting Yes. Sadly, even e.g. Tulsi Gabbard voted Yes. She previously fought against the impeachment and she has lost much of the credibility with me by this U-turn.

This vote is already much more partisan than the 1998 impeachment vote against Bill Clinton. At that time, I was a fresh newcomer in the U.S. and – while feeling a bit closer to the GOP, of course – I largely opposed the harassment directed against Clinton. You shouldn't be surprised – my relaxed nation simply finds it too much to remove the most powerful man on Earth because of some semi-sexual sins. And the lying in this context is also comprehensible – a beloved Czech sexuologist Plzák has taught us "deny, deny, deny" (3x "zatloukat"). ;-)

OK... but two decades ago, 31 Democrats actually joined the campaign against Clinton. It's much more partisan in 2019. It's insanely partisan now.



Trump is accused of the mortal sin of calling a Ukrainian politician. More specific accusations involve the statement that he was delaying some help to Ukraine up to the moment when Ukraine agreed to investigate some criminal activities involving U.S. citizens – who are close to being Trump's foes (the Biden family etc.). I am not a lawyer. It's possible that some laws say that this is illegal – although I am pretty sure that it's not illegal enough to make it into the extraordinary crimes that are required for impeachment.

Doing something illegal isn't sufficient for the impeachment according to the U.S. constitution – and this fact has extremely good reasons.



But even if you imagined that it's technically legally possible to harass the president for this bizarre reason, it's an extremely, shockingly bad idea to actually do so. The delaying of the help is a typical part of politics. Almost every decision by a top politician – especially clever decisions like that – have the character of some trade. Ukraine gets something if it does something. How could it be otherwise? On top of that, every decision by a U.S. politician that may be said to help the country – the U.S. – may also be said to help the politician personally.

It's an extremely good idea for the U.S. and its president to help Ukraine fight corruption in that post-Soviet country. Ukraine is a very corrupt country and the U.S. has good reasons to try to improve this bad situation in this mostly friendly country. The idea that this basic moral observation ceases to hold whenever the corruption is linked to a member of the Biden family is utterly sick.

Why would someone who is impartial doubt that it was right for Trump to do what he did? A politician who serves his country simply aligns his interests with the country's interests. But on top of serving his country's interests, of course that he also needs to serve his own political or even personal interests. And the interests of his party or other important enough institutions that he is affiliated with. He needs to think about these matters – otherwise he or his party could become quickly unable to serve the country, too.

So I think that if this act could be considered criminal or even impeachable, then basically every political decision is criminal if not impeachable and the U.S. constitutional system is a minefield that explodes very quickly once the politicians realize the "opportunities". And this precedent would surely be used in the opposite way, too. A Democratic Party president – or maybe even lower-level politicians – could be removed for similar bogus reasons. They would probably be removed for even more bogus reasons because in their revenge, the Republicans would surely (and perhaps justifiably) feel that they have the right to be even tougher because they weren't the first ones who started this game according to the new, harsh rules.

The republican or democratic system is a non-violent replacement for some violent processes that could otherwise decide about the rulers. By avoiding violence, the country saves human lives and lots of money, too. But it only works if and when it works. For the republican or democratic system to be beneficial, one needs some basic respect towards the country and its basic rules and values from the majority of both main parties. When this respect towards the basic values – and whatever is good that most Americans share – disappears, then the non-violent system starts to fail and the violent method to solve the problems may be a better solution once again.

I simply think that every decent person "morally feels" that the impeachment proceedings justified by these claims are utterly immoral and hugely destabilizing for the country. The Democratic members of the Congress simply abuse the institution of the impeachment to harass the president – whom they have always wanted to remove, regardless of the dirty tools they would need to employ. They have turned into a hostile organization composed of NPCs who are always eager to or capable of lying when it suits their interests – and the lies they are capable of spreading may be arbitrarily self-evident and arbitrarily harmful for other people and the country as a whole.

The structures of the Democratic Party have turned into parasitic weeds that can no longer be assumed to respect even the most basic aspects of integrity and peaceful co-existence. They will lie about the sex of a 7-year-old boy and they will castrate him when it's approved as an act "in the interest of that party". While they are castrating the boy, they will arrest the Republican farmers for sexual harassment if these Republican farmers frown at their cow. While they participate at corruption schemes in which they steal hundreds of millions, they will happily criminalize a president for a telephone call.

As long as democracy largely worked, you could look at a Democrat as if he or she were primarily an American or a human being who helps to build the U.S., despite the differences. But I am afraid that these times are gone by now. Every decent American must sort of embrace the sad fact that a Democrat is primarily a malicious immoral enemy who is ready to do an arbitrarily nasty thing in the name of his or her party and its ideological and egotist "causes". A Democrat is no longer primarily an American or a human being. He or she or it is primarily a problem that needs to be contained or solved. Sadly, Democratic Party's limbs have embraced their primary identity as weeds that need to meet their Monsanto.

The non-violent times were helpful for the peaceful civilized evolution of the U.S. but the advantages of the non-violence have apparently ceased. Too many increasingly unconstructive people got too many things for free and got used to increasingly insane entitlements. America has been thoroughly contaminated by this cheap, easily overgrown biomass and those Americans who don't deny the basic reality must realize that the non-violence has been massively overdone. The problem threatening the basic fabric of the American society has become serious and has to be vigorously wrestled with.

These events remind us of the fact that a nicely written constitution isn't everything. Latin America has largely copied the U.S. Constitution but the results are much worse. The constitution isn't everything – the quality of the people matters, too. And when some 50% of the nation is composed of the people similar to the contemporary Democrats, it's a huge problem for the whole nation.

And that's the memo.



I was sent this 1906 video of San Francisco transportation yesterday – with the correct speed and sound! In combination with some pictures of San Francisco from 2019, the video makes it somewhat debatable whether San Francisco's progress in the subsequent 113 years was positive or negative.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :