Impeachment And More

     The price of apathy toward public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
                                                                                                       Plato
     
      A man is known by the company he keeps.
                                                              Aesop

     Birds of a feather flock together.
                       Variously attributed








     In my newspaper days we liked to sprinkle lighter stories among the heavier fare of election years. One involved sending reporters to gather man-on-the-street vignettes. Nothing scientific or politically heavy. Just the kind of chit-chat you might have over your back fence or with the customer on the next bar stool.
     Even in presidential years, we  ran across a few people who were not aware that an election was being held. In this, we had anecdotal experience of what is shown by measured evidence: Americans are lousy voters. Many don't vote at all. Among those who do, many vote in ignorance or in heedless fascination with one issue.
     The behavior waxes and wanes. At its worst it magnifies the power of zealous factions and produces the likes of Donald Trump.
      Aesop's admonition (above) does not mean that a man's reputation may be harmed if he keeps shady company. It means that a man's true character is revealed in his choice of associates. Trump's chosen associates have produced through the pores of his administration a steady seep of corruption and mendacity.
     Trump's foes would thus agree with Aesop. And his extremes have tempted them to some of their own. Impeachment talk began amid the echoes of the inaugural address.
     This is, I think, even yet a bit premature. The Constitution does not say the president may be impeached for being a vulgar, self-seeking boor, or even for being deeply unpopular with most of the voting public. It says the president may be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
     The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted from English legal traditions. It is meant to apply specifically to holders of public office.  Roughly speaking, it means that a president could be impeached and removed for actions that violated his oath of office.
      While the pursuit of any such charges would be in part juridical, it also would inescapably be in part  political. In either event, charges would need to meet principled standards of proof. Utmost care is wanted in any proceeding against the President -- not for the sake of the president, but for the sake of the principles.
     Robert Bolt caught the idea of it in his play and movie A Man For All Seasons.  In one scene, Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII, is discussing law and ethics with his prospective son-in-law, William Roper.

     Roper: So, now you give the devil benefit of law!
     More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?
     Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
     More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down ... do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

     It isn't enough to know that the President is corrupt, as sentient adults by now must  surely do. He must be proved corrupt, by the rules that protect us all. The special investigation now under way bids fair to do so, in its own due course.
     Meanwhile, such voices as The New York Times note that President Trump lost the popular vote by no small margin and call for abolition of the Electoral College. This is another extreme.
      With good reason, the founders were wary of unleavened popular democracy. They knew that the line is thin between public attitude and the fever of the crowd. One of their buffers was the United States Senate, in which small states have equal weight with large ones.  On the same idea they modeled the Electoral College.
     If it is occasionally vulnerable to the kind of circumstantial fluke that produced Donald Trump, it has over the years done its intended job. It has sheltered the legitimate interests of less populous areas from being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of voters living elsewhere.
     It is not necessary or wise to amend the Constitution to counter ballot-box laziness. The larger population has readily available the gambit of voting in greater numbers. They would be so advised by another sage:
   
     We have met the enemy and he is us.
                                         Pogo Possum