The Self-Defeating Prophecy

[pat_k]

Challenging another promoter of the Self-Defeating Prophecy. A response to:

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/11/you_think_you_want_to_impeach.html">So, You Think You Want to Impeach?
Book Review By Tim Dickinson
Mother Jones, November/December 2006
(Tim Dickinson writes Rolling Stone's political blog "National Affairs Daily")

To: [email protected]
Subject: Backtalk: So You Want to Quit on Impeachment?
Date: Sunday, November 05, 2006
----------------------

Dear Mr. Dickinson,

In "So, You Think You Want to Impeach?" you use your review as a platform from which to tell Americans not to bother with impeachment; that it's not in the cards. (Effectively saying "it won't happen, so shut up."). But if you told people who are fighting to eradicate AIDS or poverty or hunger that "it won't happen, so shut up" I can't imagine you would expect -- or even want -- any of them to listen to you.

If you had argued that the charges against Bush and Cheney were baseless, your desire for people to give up the fight might be understandable. But when you point out that their attacks on the Constitution are blatantly self-evident ("hiding in plain sight") and that "the articles of impeachment write themselves," and then criticize the "impeachment tomes" for merely introducing unnecessary complexity, you simplify and strengthen the case for impeachment.

Your desire for people to give up the fight is apparently based solely on your pronouncement that the fight is futile.

Your blind assertion that "the American people would far prefer . . .two more years of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush than to see the White House change hands in what could only be described as an administrative coup" can never be tested because the scenario you present is not necessarily the one the American people would face. As the threat of impeachment becomes real, Bush and Cheney have choices too. If they choose they can keep the Presidency in Republican hands.

If Bush and Cheney choose to be removed through impeachment rather than resignation, then the succession We the People established in the 25th amendment will govern and the Speaker of the House will take the office of the presidency. As long as the succession is in accord with the laws we established it reflects our will. Some may call it an "an administrative coup" but name calling can't change reality.

Of all the rationalizations for inaction, some form of "it won't happen, so shut up" is perhaps the most insidious. Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for will never happen if nobody takes up the fight. Fortunately for the nation, the question for Members of Congress is not "will we win?" The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

To fulfill their oath each Member of Congress must be on the lookout for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other Members of Congress might do. Rather, they have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

Hopefully you and others promoting the "Won't happen, so shut up" mantra will recognize that when principle demands action, outcome expectations do not enter into the decision to act. The choices are simple: you act or betray principle; silence is complicity. Whether or not the establishment continues to be immobilized by rationalization, we can hope that more and more ordinary Americans choose faith and courage over pessimism disguised as "realism." (Though not that many more Americans are required as the new http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek poll shows 51% want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress.)

Sincerely,

Patty

[haymark]

1. KICK