No American president has ever been convicted in an impeachment trial. President Mulligan slipped the constitutional noose a second time – what a talented boy! – on 13 February 2021, technically an “acquittal.” He of course trumpeted this as proof of his innocence and as complete exoneration. It was neither. Even to call it an acquittal is misleading, especially in this instance in which a handful of Republicans defected and most senators voted to convict and remove. The result more closely resembled a hung jury. The “acquittal” likely will become part and parcel of a GOP effort to cast the 6 January insurrection into the Sea of Oblivion. The vote was enraging and absolutely foreordained. A screed referring not to an article in the paper but to the news generally was sent to The Richmond Times-Dispatch, which passed. That one surprised me.
The Former President’s “Acquittal.”
And so ended the impeachment proceedings. The House Managers’ case was factually unimpeachable, constitutionally pristine, and rhetorically powerful, compelling to heart and mind. It eviscerated a defense fueled by mendacity, false equivalence, and faux outrage, a reflection of the defendant.
Yet there was no clarifying moment, no dramatic passage that would jar the deluded from their civic torpor. No Margaret Chase Smith arose from the GOP to uncover her party’s folly. No Joseph Welch crystallized the damage to public life from unabashed political indecency.
The Senate Minority Leader instead offered post-trial sophistry contorted enough to make a medieval scholastic theologian blush, political triangulation so transparent that he need hardly have bothered. He and forty-two Republican senators consigned their integrity to a blind trust. They seem unlikely soon to reclaim it.
Seven of their GOP brethren have been lauded for voting guilty. This sets the bar for civic virtue low. Conviction required only a sliver of conscience and a glancing regard for truth and still they find themselves vilified by their colleagues and the Republican base. Would Abraham Lincoln recognize his party were he to see it pound shut the coffin of accountability?
The salient question is how the GOP now will elevate the Big Lie. The party has inured its faithful to untruth: Tax cuts to the wealthy always create jobs and enhance revenues despite never having done so,[1] Saddam Hussein had WMD and “palled around” with Al Qaeda, torture comports with American values and invariably foils malign plots, Wall Street and financial deregulation had no hand in the Great Recession, the forty-fourth president was a Kenyan Marxist Muslim authoritarian, mainstream media purveys only “fake news,” coronavirus is a hoax, the 2020 election was stolen. Can Orwellian Doublethink be far away? Perhaps war is peace, falsehood is truth, guilt is innocence.
[1] Igor Derysh, “50-Year Study of Tax Cuts on Wealthy Show They Always Fail to ‘Trickle Down,’” Salon, 27 December 2020 (www.salon.com/2020/12/27/50-year-study-of-tax-cuts-on-wealthy-shows-they-always-fail-to-trickle-down/, accessed 27 December 2020); David Hope and Julian Limberg, “The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich,” International Inequalities Institute Working Paper 55, December 2020, London School of Economics and Politics (https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf, accessed 27 December 2020).
The second impeachment of King Joffrey the Superannuated following the 6 January 2021 assault on the Capitol led me to ponder the Athenians’ use of ostracism to take the starch out of potential tyrants and how closely impeachment was analogous to it. The product of this reverie was this unpublished editorial.
I wasn’t certain what to do with it. My Beloved, with my consent, passed it to a friend whose opinion I value. She was enthusiastic and asked to use it in her classes as an example of how pre-modernity holds relevance for the present. I blushed. I flogged it to The New York Times and The Washington Post. No dice. Events then pushed it past its sell-by date.
An American Ostracism.
The nation finds itself at a disconcerting juncture in its democratic story, yet the crisis is one far from unique for democratic governments. The forty-fifth president made an attempt, unprecedented in the American experience, to subvert the democratic process and to extend his rule through unconstitutional seizure of power. The effort failed but left in its wake the thorny problem of how best to restrain a politician and a faction that remain a threat to democratic governance.
The risk posed by the unscrupulous actor willing to employ any means to arrogate power for personal benefit has plagued democracy from its inception. Millennia ago, the classical Athenians contended with it. Peisistratus (600-527 BCE) seized power on three occasions and ruled Athens continuously from 546 to 527 BCE as a tyrant. Tyranny, however, for the Greeks did not bear the dark connotations attached to it in the American idiom. It was understood neutrally and simply as rule by unconstitutional means. It was possible for an Athenian tyrant to be broadly popular and Peisistratus mostly was. A tyrant often aspires to cement the position as a family business and therein is the problematic nature of tyranny exposed. Hippias (d. 490 BCE) followed his father Peisistratus as tyrant. His rule became so oppressive that the Athenian statesman Cleisthenes helped to engineer his ouster and exile in 510 BCE and then two years later introduced the reforms that earned him the sobriquet “father of democracy.”
This democracy was narrow in its franchise (only free men; no women, no slaves) but ultimately more radically participatory than the American representative model. It introduced a measure to forestall the ascent of a future wannabe tyrant, ostracism. Athenian citizens convened annually and voted whether there should be an ostracism. If yes, a second, secret balloting was held two months later. Every citizen incised a name on a potsherd (ostracon) and, if a quorum voted, the top vote-getter had ten days to settle his affairs and leave Athens for ten years; however, his property and citizenship were protected and a return to politics was permitted once the exile ended. The goal was to break a threatening, dangerous politician’s power and to hobble his faction. Perhaps a dozen Athenians suffered ostracism during Athens’ classical era.
Historical analogies are, of course, inherently limited. Classical Athens is not twenty-first century America; nonetheless, the past should not be wholly discounted and can at least whisper in the present’s ear. The universality of human experience should never be dismissed. The question becomes, then, what democratic methods are available here and now to thwart a potential tyrant. The situation in 2021 is complicated by a further disturbing reality: A swathe of politicians in one of the nation’s two political parties has been marinating in varying measures of cynical ambition, authoritarian fantasy, delusion, and fecklessness, a toxic mixture with the potential to initiate a downward spiral into autocratic, illiberal governance.
It is difficult to think that the Constitution’s framers, classically educated as they were, were ignorant of the Athenian example. It, moreover, seems unlikely that they, having rebelled against what was in their perception tyrannical rule in its pejorative sense, would not have devised a provision to safeguard their fledging democratic republic from a tyrant. They in fact did. This mechanism was set into motion last month with the House’s bipartisan vote to impeach the forty-fifth president for fomenting the assault on the Capitol on 6 January.
Unlike Athenian ostracism, this procedure requires three rather than two steps, and here the third step is crucial. The former president must not just be convicted in his upcoming Senate trial but then he must also be disqualified from further federal officeholding. This American ostracism is the only constitutional remedy for a dangerous demagogy driven by an amoral, conscienceless political opportunist suffering from more than a soupçon of sociopathy.
Would that we now had a political counterpart of another classical Greek, Diogenes the Cynic (414/404-323 BCE), that prince of gadflies who made a career of exposing the hypocrisy and cant of the political elite. What would Diogenes conclude should he stroll through the impeachment trial and, as was his wont, hold aloft a lamp lit in daytime in a search for an honest person? Whatever he might make of the American brand of ostracism, the behavior on 6 January of the onetime president, now decamped to Florida, has proven true an aphorism credited to Diogenes: “The mob is the mother of tyrants.”
This is another crack at an editorial that never took off. I was teaching Norman and Plantagenet England at the University of Richmond and the Plantagenet portion spoke to me in a way it hadn’t theretofore. President Supersize Me was much on my mind because of his “acquittal” in the impeachment trial early in February 2020. Henry III of England seemed a little “Trumpy” to me in ways big and small; moreover, the sense of limited executive authority as understood by Simon de Montfort and the rebelling barons, to say nothing of their courage and commitment to their cause, offered a counterpoint to the behavior of the national GOP, a contrast further sharpened by subsequent events.
I put a thing together and sent it to a couple of outlets (The Washington Post, The Virginian-Pilot), who passed on it but were nice about it.
A Medieval Presidency?
2020 seems to have completed President Trump’s seduction of the Republican Party. The unwillingness of GOP senators and representatives to rebuke Trump in the impeachment process for disregarding rule of law, violation of constitutional principles, and flouting of political norms was telling. Now congressional Republicans largely stand aside while the president removes inspectors general, interferes in judicial processes, smears his predecessor with baseless conspiracy theories, and employs the military against peaceful protestors.
A cottage industry devoted to finding historical analogies for Trump’s misbehavior has emerged. Does he belong with the twentieth century’s totalitarian despots or does his clownishness place him alongside tin-pot dictators of banana republics? Or is he a throwback to the Ur-tyrant of the American mind, England’s George III?
One of George’s medieval predecessors may be a more apposite historical precursor. Henry III (r. 1216-72) was the successor to John of Magna Carta fame and father of Edward I, the Longshanks, the opponent of Braveheart’s William Wallace. Henry had exaggerated personal qualities. He loved sumptuous living and was enchanted by construction projects. He built castles and palaces and rebuilt and enlarged Westminster Abbey, all the while fussing over furnishings. He judged character poorly and surrounded himself with foreign favorites, to his English barons’ displeasure. He took advice only from a small, intimate circle except when he dispensed even with this and made decisions unilaterally. His autocratic tendencies were barely concealed.
His arbitrariness and profligacy reached a crisis when he agreed to purchase the kingdom of Sicily for his younger son. Unable to raise enough money, he asked his barons for an extraordinary tax. This request engendered baronial resistance led by his brother-in-law Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. The barons compelled Henry to accede under oath – a grave commitment in the medieval mind – to the Provisions of Oxford (1258). Henry was obliged to consult a council of barons on state matters and to “parlay” three times a year with a larger council in a “parliament.” The immediate crisis passed, Henry voided his promise and left his opponents with little choice but to submit or fight. The barons bested Henry at Lewes (1264). Henry and his son Edward were captured, the latter made hostage to ensure the king’s good behavior. Simon and the barons became England’s de facto rulers for fifteen months.
Political poems reflecting the baronial viewpoint appeared, the most famous perhaps “The Song of Lewes.” The “Song” underscores how a king must govern for the community’s benefit and honor the rule of law: “We give first place to the community; we say also that the law rules over the king’s dignity; for we believe that the law is the light, without which. . .he who rules will wander from the right path. . .” The poem’s broader community was the king’s natural counsellor: “Therefore let the community of the kingdom advise; let it be known what the generality [of the people] thinks to whom their own laws are best known.” Indeed, the leader’s submission to the law would not weaken but ennoble him: “And this constraint [of a free law] is not one of slavery but is rather an enlarging of the kingly faculty. . .” The “Song” emphasizes where the ruler’s focus should be: “And let the king never set his private interest before that of the community. . .” “He who does not know how to rule himself will be a bad ruler over others. . .” The “Song” leaves a disquieting impression: The barons, many of them little more than semi-literate armed thugs, surpassed the Solons of today’s GOP in understanding rule of law and separation and balance of powers.
The story has a coda. Edward broke his confinement, rallied his father’s supporters, and defeated the barons at Evesham (1265). Simon died in battle and his corpse was hewn to pieces. For the earl’s supporters, his remains became sanctified and the field where he perished hallowed ground. Miracle-stories spread. Henry could not abide this and in the Dictum of Kenilworth (1265) mandated that “[t]he injurious damnable acts of Simon and his accomplices. . .are nullified and have no force” and that “the vain and fatuous miracles told of him by others shall not at any time pass any lips. And that the king shall agree strictly to forbid this under pain of corporal punishment.” Simon’s rectitude, courage, and commitment to good governance were “fake news” to be suppressed. Henry had learned no lesson, though at least the barons had tried to instruct him. Would that the same could be said of today’s GOP. The Republican Party seems capable only of narrowly transactional impulses. Its abdication of its responsibility to the community leaves that community of voters to restrain Trump by every legal means and to ensure his departure from office.
[1] “The Song of Lewes,” in E. Amt (ed.), Medieval England 1000-1500: A Reader (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2001), pp. 253-61.
[2] “The Miracles of Simon de Montfort,” in E. Amt and K. Allen Smith (eds), Medieval England 500-1500: A Reader, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 248-50. “Dictum of Kenilworth 1265,” The National Archives (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/dictum-of-kenilworth/ [accessed 16 February 2020]).
I continued my survey of the Bluegrass’s print journalism in late September 2019. The Ukraine story was developing by the hour and dominated cable news. The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise, a regional daily, approached the story unconventionally. By picking up an Associated Press story by Dmytro Vlasov and presenting no other coverage, the only news its readers received was that the Ukrainian president was miffed by the release of the written record of his conversation with President CrowdStrike. The accumulating substance of the affair wasn’t mentioned. Welcome to the “news” in Red State America, I suppose. To The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise’s credit, it printed my critique of its news judgement.
Dmytro Vlasov, “Ukrainian Leader Bristles at Release of Trump Transcript,” The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise, 27 September 2019, A6; Associated Press, 26 September 2019 (https://subscriber.thenewsenterprise.com/node/426409/, ). The above link leads to the e-edition of article in The (Elizabethtown) News Enterprise. Access to this is likely limited by the newspaper’s paywall. If the paper posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The following link is to the Associated Press’s online version (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-joe-biden-politics-6454968c0e3642b59ffbece30abeefd4).
“Questions Selection of Ukrainian Story,” The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise, 7 October 2019, A6 (www.thenewsenterprise.com/opinon/letters_to_editor/letters-to-the-editor-oct/article_0ef65466-8050-5176-8371-7cb1944d53f4.html).
By the time I departed for the biannual hajj to the Bluegrass, The Gaslighter in Chief’s conduct had become so egregious that Nancy Pelosi could no longer temporize on doing something about it. I had my customary I-64 sleepover in Lexington and bought a copy of The Lexington Herald-Leader. The paper had picked up The New York Times’ reporting by Nicholas Fandos on the speaker’s announcement of the opening of an impeachment inquiry regarding President Perfect Conservation’s alleged shakedown of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. I did a riff on Representative Adam Schiff’s soliloquy regarding what is “okay.” The Lexington Herald-Leader was not sufficiently amused to print it.
Nicholas Fandos, “House Opens Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump,” The Lexington Herald-Leader, 25 September 2019, 1A, 2A (www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html). If Lexington Herald-Leader posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The link above is to the version that appeared the The New York Times.
This past week’s torrent of events demands an updating of Representative Adam Schiff’s litany of questions to his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee on 28 March. The GOP members of the House and Senate should ask themselves whether it is okay that a president’s personal attorney dabble in foreign affairs outside of official channels. Is it okay that a president pressure a foreign head of state to gather and perhaps even to concoct damaging information on a domestic political opponent? Is it okay that a president, whether tacitly or explicitly, dangle the provision of congressionally appropriated assistance as a carrot or the withholding of it as a stick to compel the head of state to bow to his wishes? Is it okay that a White House flout the whistleblower statutes and stonewall Congress in its performance of responsible oversight of the executive branch? Would any of this be okay if done by any Democratic president or White House, past or future? The nation waits and watches. It is a sad reality that the GOP’s answer may already be easily enough guessed.