Nancy Pelosi is an able tactician, but a poor strategist. She will not save the Republic
Nancy Pelosi is an able tactician, but a poor strategist. She will not save the Republic
A couple of years ago I read Andrew Roberts’ tome on Napoleon. As a schoolboy, Napoleon voraciously inhaled everything he could read about military conflict, including several then-recent books suggesting novel tactics. As a young general, he implemented those tactics to brilliant effect, winning almost every big battle he fought.
But if he was a masterful tactician, he was a so-so strategist. His strategy essentially consisted of:
1. Invade neighbor’s country.
2. Win all the big battles.
3. Occupy his capital.
4. Accept large indemnities, and territorial and political concessions, in return for going home.
By the time he got to the last big continental power, Russia, Tsar Alexander and his generals had thoroughly analyzed Napoleon’s style. So they employed a colossal, masterful rope-a-dope strategy in which they retreated after every battle was started, denying him his decisive big victories while drawing him ever deeper into Russia’s heartland – ultimately 1000 miles. The tsar even allowed him to occupy Russia’s “old capital” of Moscow, and set it afire so that Napoleon could not use it to provision him during the winter. Then he simply ignored Napoleon’s entreaties to negotiate step #4. By the time Napoleon realized the tsar was simply going to refuse to capitulate, it was too late, and Napoleon lost over half a million men in the ensuing retreat through the brutal winter back to his nearest supply lines in Poland. Napoleon was fatally wounded, and Tsar Alexander’s men harried his retreat all the way back across Europe. Three years later, Russian troops occupied Paris.
Okay, so I’m not tarring Nancy Pelosi as making Napoleonic mistakes. But there is a comparison, because while Pelosi is a very able tactician, her excessive caution makes her a poor strategist.
Take the government shutdown. Common wisdom is, Pelosi won that battle. But look what was “accomplished:” in return for a government shutdown for about 45 days, with 800,000 federal workers furloughed without pay, causing an actual downturn in economic activity I’ve called a “mini-recession”:
Here’s what Pelosi got. Instead of giving Trump $7 billion for his “wall,” she gave him $2 billion. Which by the way hasn’t been spent, and which caused him to declare a “state of emergency” which hasn’t even been passed on by a US District level Court yet. In other words, all of that for about 0.5% of the federal budget. In return for which, the President has so far gotten away with usurping a core area of Congressional responsibility.
Or, even more bluntly, a tactical victory but a strategic defeat.
Pelosi is playing the same tactical game when it comes to impeachment. According to the Chicago Tribune,
Pelosi has repeatedly warned that pursuing impeachment could hurt Democrats’ electoral chances in 2020.
Instead, Democrats should focus on building their majority in the House and winning back the White House and a Senate majority in the 2020 election, Pelosi said. And where they can, Democrats should work with the Trump administration on policies, such as lowering prescription drug prices and investing in infrastructure, that will benefit the American people, she said….
“The urgency to protect the integrity of our democracy is there,” Pelosi said.The answer? “Just win big, baby,” the speaker said.
In other words, the answer to Donald Trump is a democratic victory in 2020 which will enable democrats to pass their agenda (how to deal with the Senate filibuster, assuming the democrats pick up 3 Senate seats, she doesn’t say).
Throughout her career, Pelosi has always accepted polls as gospel, and refused to see that action might *move* the polls. If the House were to impeach Trump, the publicity surrounding the hearings might create a bigger groundswell for conviction. And even if the Senate refused to convict, the groundwork would have been laid that actions such as Trump’s were unacceptable.
Instead, if Pelosi’s path is followed, in the meantime here’s what will have happened:
So, if Pelosi prevails, we will simply accept permanent damage to the US’s Constitutional fabric in return for the temporary ability to maybe get some things done in 2021. As someone else has pointed out, without Congressional action Mueller’s report reads like a blueprint for how to establish corrupt autocratic rule by, say, a President Tom Cotton. And, make no mistake, it will be followed.
NDD:
The strategy appears to be either an all in or not in scenario with each having consequences.
Mostly, I believe the Dems should be coaxing Mueller to come to testify in the House. No pressure, no threats, and just asking for his help to counter the information from Barr’s assessment. I do not believe he is afraid of the Repubs or of Trump.
Mostly, I believe this will end badly for Dems as the Repubs through Barr can say whatever they wish to and Dems have no foundation (which Mueller would provide in testimony) to counter Barr’s comments. Barr, select Repubs, and Trump’s attorneys have the Report. Dems are allowed to read “altered” and redacted versions.
Mostly, I believe Dems are twisting in the wind of false Repub commentary even though they do not need to be. Inaction is what is hurting them and we need resolution this year. Repubs are driving the conversation and Dems need to have their message out there to change the paradigm.
How long will the Afrikaners prevail? Perhaps another generation.
James:
Is this to be your new ID other than SW? Please use one ID in commenting. I hope reign of witches ends soon.
While I am not real happy with the lack of impeachment proceedings, I can at least understand Pelosi’s theory. I disagree with it totally, as it relies on some cooperation from the trump admin, and that simply cannot happen.
I do disagree with NDD’s portrayal of the government shutdown, that was a clear win for pelosi and the dems. It also did not result in any money for the wall, though there was increased border security dollars.
To use trump’s subsequent “state of emergency” reaction as reasons against the shutdown seems far fetched to me. He is going to do whatever he can to advertise to his base how much he hates brown people, and needs to spout it constantly less they forget.
Which to me is another reason to go straight to impeachment. Nothing will happen without it.
The criticism of Pelosi ignores what is going on in the House independent of “impeachment hearings”. Representative Nadler is pressing for Mueller’s testimony and release of the report without redactions and including the underlying evidence collected. An impeachment inquiry could do no more. Insisting on a vote based on the current knowledge of the Mueller report’s contents would be unlikely to change attitudes currently existing in the electorate and would likely result in failure in the Senate. Ultimately what gets turned over and who testifies before House committees will be decided in the courts.
I dunno, I think the chances of getting a conviction in the Senate are less than a snowball’s chance in hell. And even with a conviction we would get President Pence, which is probably worse than a President Trump, as hard to believe as that might be. So I don’t see any upside to impeaching Trump unless there was high confidence that it would hurt his chances at re-election. The worst of all possible worlds would be an unsuccessful impeachment effort that led to Trump’s re-election. That would be far worse to the Constitution than anything Trump has done so far. Trump Unbound would be awful. There simply are no good options here. Whatever damage Trump has already done to the Constitution will not be undone by a partisan impeachment and a failed conviction in the Senate. It will only make matters worse. I see this as damage limitation.
The good news is that after 2020 the electoral math looks pretty grim for Republicans unless and until the GOP spends some time in the wilderness and recreates itself. I believe a lot of GOP leaders recognize that it’s basically now or never for their agenda, which is why they are so frantic about stacking the judicial system. The GOP has been fighting a rearguard action (like Napoleon?) for several years and they are fast running out of options. The demographic handwriting is on the wall. Just win in 2020 at all costs and the constitutional problems will fix themselves.
Impeachment does come with some benefits in terms of effect on the Courts.
“Democrats know that impeachment is a losing proposition against President Donald Trump right now.
But there’s another rationale for launching impeachment that has some Democrats reconsidering the idea — getting access to the sensitive documents and testimony that Trump’s team is withholding.
Judges have repeatedly ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate. And impeachment would give lawmakers that legal matter — the process is essentially a court procedure run by Congress where the House brings charges and the Senate holds the trial.
The idea might seem toxic to House Democratic leaders who have so far resisted impeachment overtures against the president, aware that the politically explosive move wouldn’t get through the Republican-led Senate and could turn off voters ahead of the 2020 election.
But legal experts and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum acknowledge that formally unleashing impeachment would bolster Democrats’ arguments that they deserve to see the president’s tax returns, interview senior officials, peruse special counsel Robert Mueller’s trove of evidence and see the details of Trump’s personal dealings with foreign leaders. So far, the Trump administration has vociferously argued it doesn’t need to acquiesce to such demands, which it says are merely part of a political hit job. The president’s personal attorneys have even punched back with lawsuits in some cases. ”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/10/democrats-impeachment-trump-1315838
I am doubtful about the assertion of precedents favoring enforcement of subpoenas in impeachment proceedings. The oversight issues involved here are obviously related to potential “ongoing legal matters” even if not filed ones. It would take a politically motivated court to rule against Congress here. There are such courts, of course, but they are not following precedent. If they were, they’d recall that the Watergate investigation was of a crime possibly having been committed by others than the burglers themselves.
When the administration claims no legislative purpose to the investigations, it doesn’t cite case law; it simply makes the assertion.
And those claims also seek to run out the clock.
“Indeed, impeachment might not only “trump” executive privilege in a court review of congressional subpoenas, but could also gives courts a solid reason to speed up hearings and appeals on the subject, much as the U.S. Supreme Court did in United States v. Nixon, the unanimous decision forcing that president to release tapes which included the famous “smoking gun” evidence of obstruction of justice. In that case, SCOTUS ruled just three weeks after oral argument subsequent to an expedited appeal from a district court.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/is-impeachment-essential-to-house-investigations-of-trump.html
Auto correct does funny things. “Bunglers” should have been “burglers”. Of course, both work.
The Nixon court ruled for Leon Jaworski’s investigation which was for possible criminals, not the impeachment inquiry.
But impeachment is a criminal inquiry.
It might be a criminal inquiry but not necessarily. My personal opinion is that when it comes to Congressional oversight issues, everyone is splitting hairs. Executive privilege is at issue regardless and, as the Nixon court stated, resolution of the conflict will be a balancing act that will ultimately turn on the seriousness of the matter from the perspective of (who exactly is unclear).
SW it is. Had a system crash.
There are a lot of levers an entrenched minority can pull in order to retain power in this ramshackeled eighteenth/nineteenth century system. Looking at the broad sweep of history you could see this demographic change coming a mile away and one could predict this rearguard action against it just as clearly. There is nothing the least bit surprising about it. Predictably, their Alamo will be the courts. But Davy Crockett died on his knees begging for his life so…
SW:
Thank you.
Mine crashed a short while ago and I had to reinstall the programs which of course trashed a lot of my stored sites. It was amazing how much I could remember and also couldn’t.