If I hear another talking head say that the 'quid pro quo' doesn't really matter, that the only thing that matters is Trump's asking a foreign leader to support his political interests, I'm likely to . . . whatever. The 'quid pro quo' matters, and it matters critically. What doesn't matter is that Trump has done something (yet again) technically impeachable. The Mueller Report documents plenty of technically impeachable offenses, and the Mueller Report didn't matter because committing technical crimes doesn't matter anymore.
The Republicans learned that when they tried to remove Clinton on a technicality concerning lying about sex. Most normal people don't think that lying, even perjuring oneself, about sex rises to impeachability, and that's why the Stormy Daniels business never got any traction with Trump. Neither do most Americans think that asking for political favors, even from foreign governments, rises to impeachability, and that's why the Mueller Report didn't matter. It would only have mattered if it came to clear conclusions about willful conspiracy with Russia to tamper with the 2016 election, and it didn't, mainly because of all the ways the Trump administration blatantly obstructed the inquiry. And Trump's obstruction is perceived as a technical matter in the same way perjury was for Clinton. Too abstract and too hard to build a broad consensus for removal on.
Impeachment and removal is about politics not about what's right and wrong, and it has no legitimacy if it's perceived as a partisan weapon. If you can't get 2/3 of the country on board with it, it's not worth undertaking, and it's just better to get removal through the electoral process. Impeachment and removal can only work if there's an issue around which you can build consensus for removal. That means understanding the social psychology that moves public opinion to push politicians–even Republicans–to get rid of someone only a crazy fringe will insist on defending. The impeachment process, of course, is part of what drives that social psychology, but you have to have an issue that has a good chance of working to move public opinion. Quidproquogate can be that issue if the Dems focus on the national security aspect of it.
The quid pro quo in itself is not enough. Most Americans accept quid pro quos as part of how the world works. But most Americans, even Trump supporters, can understand that there are everyday quid pro quos, and there are truly corrupt, criminal ones. I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine is benign; however, if you don't give me your money I will shoot you is not. And that's why this Trump's quid pro quo with Zelensky is different. It's more the latter than the former, because Trump is threatening Ukraine's survival while at the same time bartering American national security, for a political favor. Without national security at its center, this incident is just another in the long list of deplorable Trump behaviors. People are numb; they just don't care. And impeachment will be seen a illegitimate by tens of millions of Americans if something like American national security isn't seen as at the center of it.
Americans, even Trump supporters, can be educated to understand what's at stake when it's about national security. Most Americans, even Trump supporters, understand that Russia is a bad actor. So what makes this quid pro quo different is not just Trump's asking a foreign government for a political favor, but his withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to get it. And what makes it worse is that his withholding that money benefits Putin more than it benefits the U.S. and its NATO allies. That's not that hard to understand. So please, pundits, stop saying it doesn't. It does if you want to get the kind of broad public support that might actually pressure Republican senators to convict. The goal is to remove Trump, not just have an exercise in exemplary civics.
Nothing in the wildly fluctuating Trump presidency has been more consistent than Trump's support for the Putin agenda–i.e., removing sanctions imposed after annexing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine. And that's why the quid pro quo matters. In the long run, we will learn probably learn why, and we'd probably know now if we had access to Trump's tax returns. I feel relatively confident that we'll find out that probably Russian money and other Russian sources of pressure have something to do with with Trump's obsequiousness to Putin. It won't surprise me at all if it turns out that as Derepaska was to Manafort, Putin is to Trump. There's a whole other level of quid pro quo there that will explain a lot of what's driving Trump's behavior toward the Ukraine.
I also believe there is a treason dimension to this that will come into clearer focus sooner or later.
There's a part of me that feels sorry for this sad, broken human being and the pathetic, weak people who have been enabling him. Their lack of discernment, their inability to make good judgments, their willingness to just go along with the insanity is frightening. But it's one thing to be in the personality cult who cheer him at his rallies; that's just sad. It's another to be in the White House or at State and Justice enabling him; that's criminal–and possibly treasonous.
I am uncomfortable with the Deep State, which I believe is a real thing. But the Trump presidency has shown me that the Deep State is weaker than I previously thought. I would not have believed before Trump that the Deep State would have allowed someone so inimical to its interests and culture to stick around this long–given how much it must know about him that the rest of us don't (yet). It shows that as powerful as it is, it still has a level of restraint, a respect for good order, and the rule of law–certainly more than Trump and his minions do. If the whistle blower is part of a Deep State plot, then hats off to the Deep State, at least for now.
Leave a Reply