Showing posts with label impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impeachment. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Thoughts on President Trump's Impeachment

Everyone at least twenty-one years old upon reading this has the distinction of being alive during the impeachments of two United States Presidents - Bill Clinton in 1998, and last week, Donald Trump. In 1998, one would have had to look back one hundred-thirty years for the most recent, and first ever, impeachment of a President, when Andrew Johnson was given the dubious distinction in 1868.
We should probably address that word "impeach" - we shouldn't have to, but there are legions of politically vocal people who still don't understand what it means to be impeached. Impeachment is the act of bringing formal charges against an official; it does not mean removal from office. The Senate can vote to acquit or convict, and in the case of conviction, removal from office is the result. Neither Johnson's nor Clinton's case resulted in their removal.

President Richard Nixon was not impeached - he resigned from office in 1974, before articles of impeachment could be formally brought against him (though they were certainly far in the works). Again, this shouldn't have to be explained, but the internet's abundance of politically passionate people who know talking points but not history make it necessary before I express my thoughts on another impeachment.

Speaking of Nixon and history, in hindsight we know that behind the scenes he was cracking under pressure. Those closest to him at the time say he was drinking more, behaving erratically, was paranoid, and losing his composure. Nixon was not the most socially comfortable of individuals, but even for an awkward loner like him, his behavior in the White House was disconcerting for the likes of Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. The oft-parodied moment in which Nixon asked Kissinger to get on his knees and pray with him in the Oval Office is where I see the difference between Nixon and Trump - desperation.

Though it's easy for a showman like Trump, who was a television and media veteran long before he entered the White House, to put on a show of total confidence, I don't believe his arrogant defiance of the charges against him, and those who drafted them, is a mask. Trump is a natural celebrity, whereas Nixon, for all the power and publicity of his political career, never adjusted to the spotlight. Trump relishes it.

Nixon made grandiose excuses for his actions, and for his obstruction - "national security," "political containment," "executive privilege," etc. He was also strategic enough to let his aides and speechwriters do most of the PR. Trump however has taken to Twitter, because of course he has, and other outlets to lash out at his opponents. Granted, there was no Twitter in the 1970s, but more camera-ready Presidents had taken to television in moments of controversy - John F. Kennedy addressing and defending the admittance of two black students to the University of Alabama, and even the less charming Lyndon Johnson was almost a TV staple during the Vietnam War. If Donald Trump had been President during the Nixon era, he would have been in every American's living room via television (and in an age where there were three channels, all of which were taken up when the President had a speech to make).

Americans would have missed every episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show thanks to Trump's plethora of TV interruptions.

You may be asking yourself why I'm comparing Nixon and Trump when the former wasn't even impeached. The reason is because Nixon's scandal was perhaps the most detrimental to the American public and its government until 2019. Bill Clinton's affair with an intern and subsequent perjury were heavy matters, but somehow it was business as usual outside of the scandal. Issues within and without the United States were handled with as much vigor as if there had been no trouble at home. For all the seriousness of Clinton's perjury, the sexual overtones and the jokes of it made by endless comedians almost made it feel like a TMZ farce. Which is a shame, given the severity of that situation, but it's not the only political scandal whose implications were unfortunately reduced to comedy (re: the rash of "Epstein didn't kill himself" memes).

In this case, it's not necessarily President Trump's actions involving Ukraine that have consumed the nation, but rather the man himself. He's been on every thinking American's mind at least twice a day from the moment he announced his candidacy and the endless array of controversies and scandals that followed, even before he was elected. Trump is a scandal in himself; everything he does, says, touches, immediately receives notoriety or infamy, like a morbid version of King Midas. Even if one adores him, they can't deny that he is the single most controversial person in the world today, and has been so for over five years. Donald Trump the man is the biggest Presidential scandal since Watergate, overshadowing even Reagan's Contra affair in the 1980s.

The biggest, and most important difference, I see between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon had a moral compass. He didn't seem to use it much, but he had one, and much like having a conscience but not using it, doing wrong while knowing it's wrong can eventually get to a person. Nixon's crumbling and downfall showed this. He would even later admit, albeit not to the degree disappointed Americans wanted, that he made mistakes and misled the nation.

Nixon's resignation was another act of cracking under pressure. In order for him to do so, his psyche had to be manipulated by the closest members of his staff and inner circle so that he would believe the resignation was his decision - as if to say, "you didn't break up with me - I broke up with you."  Such was the state of Nixon's mind at the time, he had to be cajoled into believing it wasn't really the Senate that was taking him out of office, it was him and him alone.

Trump, meanwhile, doesn't need to be manipulated. He truly seems to believe he's done no wrong, and further, doesn't seem to be able to comprehend why he's in trouble in the first place. Whether it's demagoguery or just an inflated ego I'm not sure. But actions speak louder than even the most mealy mouthed of Tweets, and Trump either doesn't comprehend intellectually why he's in this situation, or he genuinely believes he is above the law. To him, the impeachment is a witch hunt, a conspiracy, the act of desperate losers to spite with pettiness what he has literally called "the most successful Presidency" of all time.

Nixon made his accusations, too - Watergate was a witch hunt, and in his increasing paranoia, a huge conspiracy calculated solely against him. But his actions showed that he understood the gravity of his actions. Whereas Trump simply doesn't appear to comprehend them.

Since his election, I'd always surmised that if Donald Trump were to ever face impeachment, were to actually be impeached, or simply land in a situation he couldn't get out of, he would resign from office. I wasn't alone in expecting him to immediately, or inevitably, land in trouble. The reason I expected him to resign and bolt was the memory of how his once-hit reality show The Apprentice reached its end - the same day NBC announced it was canceling the show, Trump announced he was leaving the show. Again a case of "you didn't break up with me - I broke up with you." But unlike Nixon, Trump probably didn't need to be manipulated into thinking it. He seemed to truly believe it.

If revelations of using campaign funds as hush money to a porn star mistress didn't budge Trump, neither will this impeachment, or the circumstances that caused it. I should have known from the Stormy Daniels affair, or from the recordings of Trump boasting that he'd sexually assaulted women, that nothing seems to affect this man's outlook, nor that of his more dogmatic supporters. Granted, I don't know the man. Not that that matters, as I certainly never knew Nixon, Clinton, or Andrew Johnson; but in those cases, we have the lessons and evidence of history to give us a glimpse into their minds during their respective troubles.

With Trump, all I can do is analyze what I see, and what the man himself says. And I see and hear a man devoid of both the ability to see himself in any negative light, and of the wherewithal to understand he's breached serious protocol. To Trump, the protocol either doesn't exist - "a sham" - or it simply doesn't apply to him. Other politicians in hot water may have stated such ridiculous things in their own crises, but inside, they knew better. President Trump does not.

In the legal battle that follows, that mindset will either be his downfall, or it will somehow rescue him.

"Last night, 
I saw the fire spreading to the palace door
The silent majority
Weren't keeping quiet anymore."
-John Fogerty

Monday, October 21, 2013

Things To Know Before Cursing President Obama

I'll not deny that Christianity is dogmatic - any world view, be it social, spiritual, or otherwise, is dogmatic, if one holds it to be true. But I do assert that the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ have freed me from the dogmas of American politics - the strict rules of "conservative values" (whatever those are) or "liberal progress" (whatever that is). If I follow Christ and not Reagan or Roosevelt, neither of whom died on a cross for us and rose again, I find my views on various social and political subjects not limited to one side of the fence.
Having said that, I should elaborate my Presidential voting history - in 2004, the year I turned eighteen, I voted for George W. Bush, and would not change that vote if I could. In both 2008 and 2012, I voted for Barack Obama. And though I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with his job in office, I believe it to be un-Christlike to curse him rather than pray for him. It's sort of like John Wayne said when John F. Kennedy was elected - "I didn't vote for him, but he's still my President and I hope he does a good job."

'Merica!

Now, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, some of whom serve an idol without knowing it - that is, "conservative values," even if they clash with Christ - take much joy in slandering and reviling the President. Well, that's an American tradition, but my Lord teaches me to rebuke slander and lies, such as blatantly fake "foreign student" ID cards from Columbia University, and other Facebook posts and chain e-mails with inaccurate information. So, addressing some of the most common things being said on the web about Obama, here are some things you should know:

1. Concerning the claim that Obama is the Antichrist - this cannot be, according to Scripture. Many prophecies concerning the coming Antichrist, specifically two key passages - 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5 and Daniel 11:36 - describe that the "man of perdition" will exalt himself above any other god that has ever been worshiped. President Obama, however, is a Christian. And yes, many of you may say "How can he call himself a Christian when he..." (insert complaint here). But the point is, he still calls himself a Christian and therefore does not exalt himself above any other god, nor most importantly, the only true God.
The true Antichrist is very serious and will be a very real threat, and the more we as Christians call this politician or that "the Antichrist" because we don't like him, we cause others to ignore the very real danger the real "man of sin" will bring. Further, when we use the Bible to curse and revile, rather than what we are truly instructed to do with God's word, we drive so many away from Christ. (see 2 Timothy 3:13-17)

2. The assertion that Obama is a Muslim is ridiculous because, again, he has identified himself as a Christian and has said "I'm a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." (Source: "Christianity Today") Islam, however, denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and denies that He died and rose again.
"Yeah well, maybe he's an undercover Muslim!"
Yeah, that's not how it works. Muslims would consider that blasphemy against their religion. If Barack Obama were a white man named Rick Johnson, this paranoia would simply not exist.
...what? It wouldn't.

3. When you say President Obama's "turban is too tight" when he makes a blunder, let's remember two things: he's not a Muslim, and second, the turban is not a strictly Muslim piece of attire. The Levite priests wore turbans in the days of Moses, and turbans are mentioned many other places in the Old Testament, as they were common pieces of headwear centuries and centuries before Islam was founded.

4. For those of you calling for the impeachment of Obama - you keep using that word "impeach"...I do not think it means what you think it means. To impeach does not mean to remove from office. Rather, impeachment is actually a formal accusation or bringing of charges against an elected official. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only two Presidents to be impeached, yet neither were removed from office, and both finished their terms. Also, I'd suspect that you'd be concerned about a trial costing taxpayers money - the Clinton investigation alone cost almost sixty million dollars.

The Bible's definition of a saint is not a flawless person, nor is it a person chosen by Rome; rather, the Bible alludes to saints as anyone who believes in and calls on Jesus Christ. Being in a job where everyone wants to shoot you, I believe President Obama calls on Jesus quite often. I may disagree vehemently with decisions he's made, but he is a brother in Christ, he is a fellow saint, one far above the likes of myself, or of the apostle Paul, who described himself as "less than the least among saints."

To revile a brother in Christ in such a position, rather than pray earnestly for him, is blatant, un-Christlike behavior.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.