SOME OF THE PEOPLE...

“You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

Attributed to Abraham Lincoln

Democracy Destroys Itself

Liberal democracy is a social condition under which the rule of law prevails over the rule of men and in which mechanisms to renew and convey the consent of the governed are in place, such as an accepted electoral system and free speech. Renewal is an intrinsic trait to this condition, naturally generating questioning and creativity of ideas and methods. This trait dovetails with the economic system of capitalism, which also thrives on renewal or, as Schumpeter coined it, creative destruction.

This serendipitous match between the political condition of liberal democracy and the economic system of capitalism has generated the greatest rise in general wellbeing in the history of civilization. It has allowed the knowledge accumulated in the previous 6,000 years to generate a world in which, over the span of 300 years, famine, disease and ignorance have diminished to a fraction of their previous prevalence. Advances in science and technology, widespread access to education and health care and increased standards of living worldwide have occurred as a direct result of liberal democracy and its economic cousin, capitalism. This combination has proven to have the greatest capacity to unleash throughout society the potential of its individuals to harvest the increased opportunities offered to them.

But democracy and capitalism represent a threat to continued privilege, because they are inherently renewal mechanisms –and no one wants to get “renewed.” Privilege can come in many forms: political, economic, social and racial, or any and all combinations of these. When privilege uses power to assert itself politically, it undermines the creative dynamics of democracy. Capitalism creates economically powerful entities and individuals by its process of market renewal and innovation. These entities and individuals will likewise use their power to protect their earned privilege by undermining the very same processes and free markets that allowed them to rise, manipulating markets to their advantage. These actions are triggered by the expected self-preservation instincts.

The nature of democracy and capitalism as mechanisms for renewal and innovation is what makes them inherently weak and subject to continuous attacks by those that have used democracy and capitalism to accumulate power and privilege. Just like the combination of democracy and capitalism fosters opportunity to create innovation and shared prosperity, the combination of power and privilege actively stifles such opportunity to create innovation and prosperity.

I begin one of my books, “La Venezuela imposible,” with the assertion that, historically, democracy is not a natural condition for society. It is fiction to believe that even today, in “advanced” western societies such as the U.S. or Western Europe, democracy is favored by everyone; even less so in other societies more distant from Western tradition and history. As illiberal regimes gain strength, the threat to a condition that has fostered opportunities for growth and prosperity throughout the world becomes an ominous, growing reality.

---

A Question of Goals – “Death to Intelligence!”

The United States faces a dilemma; a dilemma having to do with its goals as a society. In a recent essay by Gerald Russello, on the positions on conservative and postmodern politics, it is stated that politics is the way we speak to one another to identify and further the common good—our goals. For years, that was the case in the United States and many countries under its influence, all gazing at that “city upon a shining hill” which President Reagan spoke about, referencing Reverend Winthrop. It was a simple goal encapsulated in a universal “American Dream,” mostly understood as a proper home, education, health and security, all part of a growing middle class in which our children would lead better lives than the ones we had. That was the understood common good. Partisan discourse revolved around the ways and paths to achieve such a goal, not on the goal itself.

The condition has changed. “Grievance politics,” groups of all sorts fighting to preserve, assert or appropriate privilege have arisen to pursue disparate goals for society, rending a cleavage manifested in "political correctness," "cancel culture," or paramilitary groups and outlandish conspiracies. Those who  believe in democracy as a renewal mechanism to achieve the common good are being overtaken by those who use democracy to accumulate power and maintain their interests. In the United States this looks like the unimpeded accumulation of monopoly power by legacy corporations, “systemic racism” and misogyny in many government and private bureaucracies, and the use of electoral sleight of hand to impose minority rule. The goal does not seem anymore to create opportunities to achieve the American Dream for all; it seems to be to attain and retain power in order to defend the privilege of some by impeding the creative forces of renewal.

Polling would suggest that approximately 40 to 60% (adding “right” and “left”) of Americans are comfortable undermining the mechanisms of democracy as long as their own interests and privileges are protected – or believe they will be. This is one explanation for the current wide range of support for Donald Trump (it is not only “white men without college degrees”) from a steady core of the electorate.

Privilege seeks to eliminate opportunities for potential rivals, leading to policies weakening a basic compact of liberal democracy: prosperity rises by growing a strong middle class. Limiting education and health care, for example, perpetuates cycles of poverty for the underprivileged by hampering their opportunity to compete and prosper, become part of the middle class and fulfill the “American Dream.” Limits to opportunity ensure privilege is retained.

In previous iterations of the illiberal condition, we see more open and brazen attacks on education culure and culture, as in the notorious assertion by Francoist General José Millán Astray: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!” (“Death to intelligence! Long live death!”) during his infamous exchange with Miguel de Unamuno at Salamanca University in 1936, at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. Or the notorious line in the play by Hanns Johst: "When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun" (Schlageter, 1933). While in the swing toward a condition of liberal democracy it seems as if such positions are "left behind," the legacies of intolerance live on in any society as a seed ready to sprout anytime.

----

Finding "Some of the People"

A key contribution of capitalism is the embrace of win-win propositions in transactions. Adam Smith explained that when a customer buys a loaf of bread, both the baker and the customer obtain something they want. General wellbeing (GDP) increases and commercial laws and contracts are codified from that simple idea. This was contrary to previous practice, in which strongman rule commonly prevailed, albeit somtimes also codifed but not neutrally, with justice not so blind. Win-lose propositions are the basis of mercantile societies and, by extension, communism. The wealth of a nation was measured by its accumulated treasure relative to the treasure of others, not by the number of transactions creating shared wellbeing within it. Many of the privileged subscribe to the idea that if others gain privilege, they themselves will lose it, their treasure, so they do everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

When democracy is understood as an environmental condition (as opposed to an “evolved” form of government) which allows in its better iterations rising prosperity and wellbeing – win-win propositions –the swings of nations from authoritarian rule, to democracies, to oligarchies and other governance arrangements are better understood. It is misleading to categorize “mature” or “developed” politics or governmental institutions, implying linear progressive improvement.  Forms of governance swing back and forth among various types, some more conducive to allowing the common good and some more intent on protecting privileges for the few: the insiders, the partisans, the members, the race, etc. - a populist promise even if it means totalitarian crackdowns.

So, how many of the people are “fooled all of the time” into believing that a society based on renewal and win-win propositions is a lie, contrary to their interest? That a nation works best when ruled by a permanent minority of “smart” people, in a gerrymandered (or fraudulently) vote into office in some cases, and appointed (or self-appointed), for life in others? And how many of the people are “fooled all of the time” into believing that liberal democracy is aligned with their interests, in pursuit of an abstract, imperfect and unattainable common good for all (“The American Dream”) --and that their fellow citizens believe in democracy too?

Polling would suggest that numbers probably hover around 40% for each of those groups in the United Ststes, probably similar in other countries. The remaining 20% are the ones all sides try to “fool some of the time.” But because illiberal forces are opposed to, and deft at managing to their advantage, “free and fair elections” and free speech, they have a better chance of fooling “persuadables” and keeping the apathetic on their couches (or voting meaninglessly), than those promoting liberal democracy values; or they just have a better knack for stealing elections. That is why the condition of liberal democracy is permanently fragile.

----

"Venceréis, pero no convenceréis"

The 2020 election in the United States is significant as a shining, prime exemplar of these issues. This election is unusual because it brings forth a broad coalition of forces that believe in liberal democracy and supports the alternative to a president who has repeatedly demonstrated does not. The usual figures on the left that would be expected to oppose a Republican president, no matter who, do not make this coalition noteworthy. Some of these even have suspect liberal democracy credentials themselves and do not risk much by their opposition to the current president. 

What is unusual is the large number of long time Republicans and conservative leaders and figures that recognize the threat that the incumbent and those supporting him represent to norms, institutions and even laws supporting the condition of democracy in the United States; what is unusual is that former members of all administrations, even of this one, have voiced their concern about the distortion of institutions that protect government and the people, such as law enforcement, intelligence and security, justice and others; what is unusual is that pundits in administration friendly media such as FOX or the Washington Times -some with power and some since sidelined- or traditionally conservative writers in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, question the democratic integrity of the president; and what is unusual is that former members of the inner circle, of the administration at large and of the Republican party as a whole are willing to risk excoriation, careers and livelihood to raise the alarms in this matter.

The illiberal coalition in power knows it is in the minority and behaves accordingly. It rushes legislation and appointments that strengthen their long term privilege and slows down those which do not. The coalition in power is doing whatever it can to interfere with free and fair elections. The coalition in power behaves as if it knows it is in the losing side of an election, which polls and demographics strongly suggest. In my book, Campaign Journal 2008, I point out that a successful professional politician is one capable of building broad coalitions towards a goal which he or she strongly believes in and can "sell" to others, maximizing results. The illiberal coalition in power seems uninterested in the idea of goals or broad coalitions, or "selling" ideas to earn votes and supporters, only in the idea of protecting privilege.

I return to the exchange between General Millán and Unamuno in the University of Salamanca in search for clarity on the dangers faced by the United State in the democracy crucible in which this condition is always forged anew. I return to those words from a scholar that universally ring true as a warning against interest above nation, and were a warning about the horrors of the Spanish Civil War about to be unleashed upon that country:

"You will win, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. In order to convince it is necessary to persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in the struggle. I see it is useless to ask you to think of Spain. I have spoken."

Perhaps, then, democracy shall not perish from this earth after all.

A WEAK DEMOCRACY

Civil order is upheld by citizen rule, and democracy is citizen rule. Undermining democracy is a threat to civil order and the capacity of government to contain violence and, right now, democracy in the U.S. is under attack. This attack on democracy is systematic and pervasive, has been going on for many years and, in spite of the safeguards and guardrails built into the Constitution, democracy is faltering.

Democracy is an in-progress experiment that continuously needs defense, corrections and amendments, because it is inherently fragile. It is important to defend democracy and all of its foundational principles, one of which is renewal: renewal of elites, renewal of ideas, renewal of leaders and of institutions; but people in power do not want to get renewed. The natural tendency of people in power is to try and stay in power, whether political or economic, so they will use and manipulate weaknesses of democracy and its tools itself to undermine it. And the biggest institutions with influence and power in our system are political parties and their entrenched interest networks.

THE REELECTION DILEMMA FOR DEMOCRACY

In the book Pathways to Freedom[1], Shannon K. O’Neil, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, dedicates a section to Mexico. In Mexico, by a century old law, no elected representatives, from the president down to local city council members can remain in office beyond one term. Dr. O’Neil argues that reelection makes public office holders more democratic because this mechanism is an incentive to make these elected officials more willing to listen to constituents than would otherwise be the case; thus prohibiting reelection runs contrary to democracy. Her argument opposing the reelection ban is:

“Perhaps designed to limit control of caudillos… this legislation makes politicians dependent on party bosses… and less accountable to voters, who will not get an opportunity to vote for them again…

…The country remains weighed down by the legacy of no reelection, which gives politicians incentives to be responsive to their parties first and their constituencies second.”­

Two hundred and twenty five years before Dr. O’Neil’s words, Alexander Hamilton weighed in on the matter, forcefully advocating unlimited reelection in his arguments in favor of the Constitution being discussed for adoption. He argued that reelection was not only a mechanism for a more responsive democracy, but a way of keeping experience and wisdom in office. Having dismissed already the notion of a quickly removable executive (a Prime Minister) by the “whims” of society or a fraction of the legislature[2] to argue a fixed term of office, proposed as four years, he addresses the issue of “re-eligibility.” On this he says it is “necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to continue [the president] in the station, in order to prolong the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration.”[3] He goes on to point out three major “ill effects” to bolster his argument:

1. “One ill effect of this [temporary or perpetual] exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behaviour.”
2.  “Another ill effect… would be the temptation to sordid views, to peculation and… usurpation. An avaricious man… looking to a time when he must yield the advantages he enjoyed, would feel the propensity… to make the best use of the opportunities, while they lasted… to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory… An ambitious man too… would be much more violently tempted to [attempt by every means] the prolongation of his power.”
3. “A third ill effect… would be, the depriving the community of the advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate in the exercise of his office.”

In 1789, shortly after writing those words the Constitution, having been ratified by the required two thirds of the states, became the document by which the United States governs itself, including unlimited reelection of federally elected officers. State legislatures promptly modeled themselves after this mechanism, allowing reelection of legislators and most executive officers. Then, in 1796, George Washington, after serving two terms as president, delivers his farewell address attempting to establish, by custom, the two term presidency convention. The second president of the United States, John Adams, ran for reelection and lost to Thomas Jefferson. Eight years later Jefferson, who did not believe in third or endless terms, despite his successful and popular presidency declined to run.

Much is said about the wisdom of the framers, and on this issue Hamilton favored unlimited reelection and Jefferson opposed it. In the ratified constitution Hamilton prevailed but Jefferson, despite having favorable odds for reelection to a third term, argued: “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”[4]

In 1951, only 146 years after first proposed by Jefferson the 22^nd Amendment, the one limiting presidential terms to two periods, was ratified. The debate on term limits has raged since the founding of the republic, and here we are. An amendment that limits the term of the presidency to ensure that power does not excessively accumulate in one person to weaken the other branches of government, as feared by some; and a notion that term limits are a useful way of curtailing such power.

THE MAKING OF PARTY RULE

The thing about power is that it exists. It can be distributed or accumulated but, like dough, squeezed on one side, it will surface on another. That is why checks and balances that identify, stabilize and control power are important. As Dr. O’Neill said, reelection has its place in democracy but experience has shown that a strong presidency, if allowed to have unlimited terms, will eventually destroy separate powers, a key component to a republic, as we have seen in other democratic experiments around the world and Jefferson forewarned. On the other hand, Hamilton’s warning about an avaricious and ambitions man, seeing a defined end to his term, using all the powerful tools of the presidency to benefit his future self –or even to seek to circumvent his limited term and stay in power by violence— is foreboding. Character matters, whether term limited or not.

Term limited legislative representatives do not have the power of the presidency. That is why in their case, as Hamilton pointed out, they will be tempted to use their limited term “… to make the best use of the opportunities, while they lasted…” and prepare themselves for a future life, first favoring and then joining, special interests represented, typically, in lobbyists or party bosses. If the US Congress were to have limited terms, the power of the presidency, party and lobbyists would overwhelm that branch of government more so that it has now.

In states where representatives have limited terms, government rotates into the hands of easily swayed greenhorns, making power shift to special interest factions; it also hems in the state executives. This is not to say that self-interest of elected officers is the only driver of political life, but it is a human trait that influences behavior, and in many cases prevails. An example of power shifted away from elected representatives is the case of Marion Heller. Her influence as a long term lobbyist for the NRA in Florida can be traced to the term limits of the state’s legislature, making her one of the most powerful persons in the capital, Tallahassee, repeatedly bashing newbies to impose her own committee assignments and legislative agenda. She has more tenure in the halls of Tallahassee than any elected individual.

The apex of political power in the US is the presidency, and the president is the leader of his or her party. Over the years, the accumulated power of party has increased substantially partly because of a deadly poison to democracy: gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a combination of the worst of secured tenure and term limits. Establishing “safe districts” for either party has created a system that allows parties to accumulate power. That power accumulates in their interest (or of a dominant fringe of the party), as opposed to the district’s constituencies. The biggest electoral threat to an incumbent is to be “primaried” by a new party favorite designee. The actual person holding office is not what matters, it is the party that keeps the seat that does. And the leader of the party, the biggest party boss, is the president who can thus manipulate the legislative and, in consequence, the judiciary. Party Rule.

A few years ago I had a friendly argument with an old high school buddy who has since passed away. He insisted that democracy in the US was a sham while I argued that, despite its problems, the US has a system that favors democracy. I still believe that to be the case, but he was right also. Democracy is in trouble, and that is because democracy is fragile. The accumulation of party power through gerrymandering and its consequential concentration in the presidency is a threat to democracy, liberty, peace and prosperity.

The ascendancy of party over country was forewarned by Washington:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”[5]

Hamilton also talked about human nature and its tendency to overrule legacy and continuity: “To undo what has been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor, as the best proof of his own capacity and desert …warranted in supposing that the dismission of his predecessor has proceeded from a dislike of his measures and that the less he resembles him, the more he will recommend himself to the favour of his constituents”[6]. By the same token if a president were to be reelected, he or she would reasonably believe it is an approval of “his measures.” Hamilton, of course, was presupposing unlimited reelections under this premise, but in our modern times this applies to party more than person.

The political and constitutional crisis underlying the governing of the US has come to a head with the galvanizing figure of Donald Trump as president. It is not, however, Trump that created the crisis, it is the elevating of party over nation that has brought us upon this crisis. When Republicans are seen to be or accused of protecting the President, in reality what they are protecting is Party Rule. The crisis is a consequence of the increasing power of parties deciding who gets elected to what office, regardless of the reality that each state, each district and each precinct, is not made up red or blue base members but made up of citizens—who seem not to matter to party. Conversely such indifference makes those citizens skeptical at best and violent at worst against the political system that governs over them. This situation is deeply rooted and goes beyond figureheads or political boogeymen.

The clear and present reality that any candidate, Democratic or Republican, can be equally polarizing to the nation is with us and the consequences to civil order may be dire. When any party rules without controls, democracy flounders. There will be interests favored or disfavored by a party rule system and they will try to curtail democracy and its renovation at every turn. Gerrymandering has made parties and factions increasingly adopt more extreme positions, eventually becoming enemies rather than adversaries. A similar unfettered antagonism in the past eventually led to the Civil War and such danger is not to be ruled out in our time. 

There may still be time to avert such an outcome, but time is running short, and prescient leadership even more so. Corrosive sectarian brinkmanship can be dialed back; challenges to gerrymandering in the Supreme Court may prevail eventually when submitted with a less partisan standard; the National Popular Vote Compact may eliminate the telegenic, divisive and mentally numbing notion of Blue and Red states. These and other measures to strengthen the role of citizens in a democracy, including protection of voting, elections and voting rights, may be too little too late but true believers in democracy and the republic must champion these as long as they can and are able to uphold citizen rule. Party Rule is not citizen rule, and Party Rule makes the country a weak union, a weak democracy and a weak nation.

Carlos J. Rangel books include "La Venezuela imposible", on the long term structural political and economic issues that led to the Venezuela crisis, and "Campaign Journal 2008" on Barack Obama's successful run for the presidency that year.

More on representative democracy and voting: THE BIG NULLIFICATION

More on reasons and consequences of impeachment: WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS....

Other essays on ELECTIONS AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS OF DEMOCRACY

Photo and illustration, copyright their respective owners.

---

[1] Pathways to Freedom, Coleman, I. and T. Lawson-Remer eds. CFR, 2013

[2] “It is a just observation that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors.” Federalist No. 71

[3] The Federalist No. 72

[4] Letter to John Taylor, Jan. 6, 1805

[5] George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

[6] The Federalist No. 72

THE BIG NULLIFICATION

Nullification is the new word creeping into the talking points and vocabulary of Trump supporters. The word is meant to convey that Trump's enemies are trying to reverse the will of the voters in the 2016 election.  It is a word meant to spin the case against impeachment and its users seek to include it in the conversation as "received wisdom."

A Little Background
In October and November 2016, with the polls indicating that a Hillary Clinton presidency was all but inevitable, the Republican Party was preparing its opposition plan for the following four years. They planned to create a “living hell” for the next president of the United States, vowing not to approve any Supreme Court nominee over the next four years and preparing a draft of articles of impeachment based on “her e-mails and other crimes” shortly after inauguration.

Congressional Republicans publicly floating support for this notion at the time included Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King ((R-NY), among others. In late October and early November 2016, talk radio was all abuzz about the upcoming impeachment. Of course, Candidate Donald Trump weighed in:

"Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, and if she were elected, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached. ... Folks, do we want to go through this again?" (Trump rally in Florida, Nov. 2, 2016)

That Republican Party's position was in line with their historical opposition to the presidency of Obama, an obstruction plan fraught on the same night he was inaugurated for his first term. This time however, as opposed as to when Obama was elected in 2008, they controlled the House. 

Representative Chaffetz said about the expected Clinton presidency: “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years of material lined up.” As Chairman of the Oversight Committee he already had several years’ experience on partisan obstruction, having led the investigation of Secretary of State Clinton on Benghazi (in one of seven congressional committee investigations into the matter) and her emails. Then came the surprising victory by Donald Trump, who obtained 46.1% of the vote and 304 Electoral votes, while Clinton had 48.2% of the vote but only 227 Electoral College votes. Rep. Chaffetz left Congress shortly thereafter to join Fox News.

Representing the Will of the Electorate

This talk about nullification brings scrutiny to the way public officials are elected. The “will of the voters” most direct measurement is votes cast and that, perhaps, should be the standard. While the Electoral College is representative of “the will of the voters” in landslide victories, this is not the case for close calls. A recent study by M. Geruso et al, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, analyzes statistically how the Electoral College is more likely to overturn the will of the voters, so-called “inversions”, in close elections.  That is, the Electoral College is more likely to “nullify” elections than impeachment proceedings, which have resulted in zero removals from office for a president. Inversions have actually resulted in four presidents winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote. It is estimated that 40% of elections in which the popular vote difference is 1% (less than 1.3 million votes in 2016) can result in that outcome, i.e. nearly half. In recent times this has occurred twice, in 2000 and in 2016. It also happened in 1876 (S. Tilden 50.9%, RB Hayes 47.9% - Hayes became president), and in 1888 (G. Cleveland 48.6%, B Harrison 47.8% - Harrison became president)[1].  Furthermore, the statistical analysis as applied to our current electoral demographics and map indicates a 65% chance of any Republican presidential candidate emerging victorious, even when losing the popular vote by a 3% margin.

These distortions of representation “trickle down” to the House of Representatives, but by a different mechanism: Gerrymandering. Over the last 10 Congressional elections, three have resulted in Democratic majorities and seven in Republican ones. The average popular vote resulting in a majority for the Democrats has been 53%, resulting on an average House majority of 55.6%, a two and a half point spread. The average popular vote resulting in a House majority for the Republicans is 49.5% for a House majority of 54%, a 4.5% spread. This spread increased substantially after the redistricting of the 2010 census, as Republican led state houses gerrymandered many congressional districts to their favor.

	Democrat			Republican			All Reps
	Pop Vote	Reps	D Caucus	Pop Vote	Reps	R Caucus
2000	47.10%	212	48.96%	47.60%	221	51.04%	433
2002	45.20%	205	47.24%	50.00%	229	52.76%	434
2004	46.80%	202	46.54%	49.40%	232	53.46%	434
2006	52.30%	233	53.56%	44.30%	202	46.44%	435
2008	53.20%	257	59.08%	42.60%	178	40.92%	435
2010	44.90%	193	44.37%	51.70%	242	55.63%	435
2012	48.80%	201	46.21%	47.60%	234	53.79%	435
2014	45.50%	188	43.72%	51.20%	242	56.28%	430
2016	48.00%	194	44.60%	49.10%	241	55.40%	435
2018	53.40%	235	54.15%	44.80%	199	45.85%	434
Win AVGs	52.97%		55.60%	49.51%		54.05%

(Since 2010, the one D led House had a +0.75% relative to the popular vote, while the R led Houses had an average +5.38 spread)

Voters perceive these representation distortions and react accordingly, because they become voting disincentives. Voter turnout is pushed down by these mechanisms as people think that, after all, their vote will not really count. People in a “Blue” or “Red” State or Congressional District will believe, with logic and reason, that their vote does not make a difference in the final outcome as the Electoral Votes or the party majority in their CD is, essentially, predetermined (“rigged”?). The “Voice of America” is stifled.

 When it comes to presidential elections, the Electoral College has created an institutional monster: “Swing States,” with their “Swing Districts.” These so called electoral battlegrounds result in other regions of the country being almost ignored by the campaigns. Jamelle Bouie has written a well-reasoned argument about the nationwide coalitions of interests that would make it to the national discussion in a campaign, instead of local state issues if it were not because of Electoral College politicking (The Electoral College is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy). Farmers in Iowa and Ohio have the same type of challenges as those in Kansas or New York, but the latter two are ignored, while the former ones are courted in retail politics. The same happens with urban problems of Atlanta or Detroit, or in the manufacturing plants of South Carolina and California, national issues being addressed in a skewed manner--only looking at the trees, not the forest. Many solutions have been offered to this slow creeping poison in our democracy, which creates divisiveness and apathy simultaneously, from the National Popular Vote Compact, to apportioning by Congressional District (for example Maine and Nebraska), to Constitutional Amendments (of which over 100 have been offered). 

The end result of this electoral model has been simultaneous growth of voter apathy and sectarian divide. The political consequence is the creation of partisan factions which drive the discourse and increased frequency of impeachment calls. We have been seeing this happen over the last twenty five years or so, like a frog in slowly heating water.  

Impeachment as a Political Crisis

The calls for impeachment before the expected victory of Clinton have not been the only instance of Republicans calling for this constitutional remedy. It is significant that during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, with the Democrats controlling the House, national opinion polls found that 35% of Republicans favored impeaching the president, even though there were not any ongoing investigations of any sort. Reasons given for opening impeachment inquiries during the Obama years ranged from the “Climate-gate” email controversy, the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure jobs, the response to the BP Oil Spill, undermining US security by brokering a prisoner exchange of an army soldier for five Guantanamo detainees, to his “foreign” birthplace; and, of course, Benghazi.

Using impeachment calls as a political rallying cry is a signal of the toxic divisiveness underlying the body politic (more on this) and originated in the poisoned well of faulty representation. Out of 45 presidents, thirteen have had inquiries or resolutions introduced in the House calling for their impeachment, including all eight since Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra). Typically the underlying offenses have been abuse of power or corruption. The case of Hillary Clinton is unprecedented in that calls for her impeachment were being made before she had been elected. 

The increasing use of impeachment threats based on political interest or bias has cleft the nation into sectarian partisanship. The political discourse and rhetoric has shifted, characterizing opposition sympathizers and leaders as enemies, not just adversaries. This political and sectarian nature of impeachment had been forewarned by Alexander Hamilton:

“Pre-existing factions … [agitating passions and dividing the community] into parties more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused... [enlisting] animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or the other … [result in ] the greatest danger, … [that] the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, [rather] than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”[2]

Differences of opinions on how to reach national goals have been colored by partisan politics, but the primary goal remains: a better and more secure future for generations to come.[3] 

If, as Hamilton feared, the final result is not dependent on “the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,” we are in for a rough ride descending further into an abyss of sectarian partisanship enmity, as opposed to politically adversarial relationships. The feared trauma to the country associated with impeachment has actually been with us for more than twenty years. This is truly it: we have been living “the trauma of impeachment” far too long.

But if the Trump impeachment results in his removal from office, it may be a sign that the country is beginning to heal from the sectarian sickness vise which grips it, because it will have demonstrated a resolve of purpose beyond partisanship. The blatant and clear unfitness of Trump as president of the United States and leader of the free world allows for a constitutional remedy that forces unity and can bring an end to the dark era of divisiveness. And it is time for it to end.

Some more essays:
On party rule: "A Weak Democracy"

On impeachment: "We'll See What Happens...."

All on Elections and Other Complications of Democracy

---

[1] The 1824 election of John Quincy Adams (30.9% of the vote vs Andrew Jackson with 41.4%) is not comparable to the other four, because it was so split between all the candidates that it was decided by a final vote in the House of Representatives.

[2] Federalist 65

[3] Or, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

All illustrations copyright their respective authors.