How peachy is impeachment? Personality politics as modern-day Roman circus - commentary

Millions of Americans believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction and demand action from government leaders to change what they consider to be disastrous policies. Some believe the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden, which began on Thursday, is a step in that direction. History, procedural rules and personality politics indicate otherwise.

History

Of America's 46 presidents, Congress has opened impeachment inquiries into eight: Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson (twice), Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump (twice) and Biden. None have yet resulted in the forced removal of a president from office, though Nixon resigned in the midst of proceedings against him and four other presidents were brought to trial in the Senate.

Procedure

The House of Representatives must approve articles of impeachment by a majority vote before the Senate holds an impeachment trial of a president. The procedure is summed up in this illustration on a government website.

Today, that procedure begins with a member of the House of Representatives introducing an impeachment resolution. If the full House approves holding an inquiry, the Judiciary Committee and/or other committees investigate the allegations against the president. If the committee passes one or more articles of impeachment, the full House votes on the articles. If adopted, the Senate holds a trial.

Clear as day

Breitbart summed up the extraordinary level of documentation of Joe Biden's corruption and “influence peddling schemes.”

Throughout the investigation into the Bidens, House Republicans revealed significant evidence pointing towards Joe Biden’s involvement in the family business including, but not limited to: photos, texts, video, bank records, an audio recording, alleged bribes, along with IRS and former business partner whistleblower testimonies. A 20-point memo released by the Comer’s Oversight Committee details “Evidence of Joe Biden’s Involvement in His Family’s Influence Peddling Schemes.”

The most recent allegations reveal Joe Biden’s address received two wires from BHR Partners associates in July and August 2019, totaling $260,000. According to court documents, Hunter Biden did not reside with Joe Biden in Delaware when his Chinese business partners wired money to Joe Biden’s address. On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee released additional evidence from IRS whistleblowers that revealed Hunter Biden referenced selling access to Joe Biden as “the keys” to “my family’s only asset.” [Emphases added].

Futile

To remove a president from office, the Senate must convict them by a two-thirds vote. At least 18 Democrats or Independents would need to join the 49 Republican senators to convict Biden. In an indication of how the 48 Democrat senators will vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the House decision to open the impeachment inquiry "absurd." 

Additionally, all three Independent senators are aligned with the Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, who recently stated, "[W]e have got to bring the entire progressive community to defeat Trump – or whoever the Republican nominee will be – [and] support Biden.” USA Today thus expressed the paper's clarity on the chance of removing Biden.

If House Republicans are successful in an impeachment vote, Biden will likely be saved in any ensuing trial by the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.

How could a president so easily survive revelations of turning the White House into a pay-to-play “influence peddling scheme"?

Amicus meus

Many Democrat senators will side with Biden over fears of Schumer excluding them from committee assignments and withholding party support for their reelection campaigns, even if they personally believe Biden's corruption warrants his removal from office. Others, though, would continue supporting Biden even in the absence of party pressure, placing their faith in an ancient Latin proverb.

Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei (my friend, the enemy of my enemy)

Biden, being considered the enemy of Republicans, and Republicans generally considered to be the enemies of Democrats, then becomes a “friend” to be defended by Democrats (politicians and voters alike). 

While the proverb may provide good strategic advice in some cases, to temporarily side with an enemy's enemy in an effort to defeat the common enemy, it certainly cannot be applied across the board at all times.

Even Reagan

Republicans are also not immune from such oversimplified thinking, having jumped to the defense of both Bush administrations, no matter how far they veered from the party line, as soon as Democrats attacked them. Even President Ronald Reagan was able to pass laws widely unpopular with his base as Republicans defended him in knee-jerk fashion when he provided Big Pharma with immunity from vaccine injury claims, ballooned the deficit and gave amnesty to three million illegal aliens who, together with their children, are today turning Red states Blue. 

Personalities

The defense of individuals based on who opposes them can also be described as personality politics. In one example, President Trump was challenged by Megyn Kelly for making Anthony Fauci “a star.”

Not only did you not fire Fauci, who is loathed by many — millions of Republicans in particular, but also some Democrats — you made him a star. . . . You actually gave him a presidential commendation. 

Trump, in turn, responded by distancing himself from Fauci.

I don't know who gave him the commendation. . . . Fauci was very important in the Biden Administration; much less important [in my administration]. If you know, he didn't want us to stop China — he wanted to let everyone come in from China. I stopped it. I overwrote it. I overrode many of the things he did. He was much less important to me.

Many supporters of medical freedom, in turn, felt a greater affinity to Trump as the enemy of their enemy, Fauci. The focus on Trump's relationship with the personality of Fauci perforce distracts from Trump's implementation of Fauci's policies (though Trump did mention one policy disagreement, prohibiting the entry of Chinese nationals, which did not affect the medical freedom of American citizens). 

More than five years ago, British citizens bemoaned the focus on personality over policy in their nation:

People need to stop judging #politics based on personalities and party lines and instead prioritise POLICIES.

Down with Biden, in with Harris?

Even if there were 67 Republican senators committed to convicting Biden of bribery, the result would be President Kamala Harris. Holding government officials accountable for bribery and subordinating policy to foreign interests is, of course, necessary. But what else does the the focus on this short-term goal accomplish?

Panem et circenses

Panem et circenses (bread and circuses) is defined by Merriam Webster as, “a palliative offered especially to avert potential discontent.” It was coined by Roman satirical poet Juvenal after politician Gaius Sempronius Gracchus convinced the Roman government to begin distributing free grain doles in 123 BCE, about a century after Rome began providing expensive entertainment events at no cost to the public, as corruption was spreading through the empire.

The “bread and circuses” phrase is today often used to describe government handouts, Hollywood movies, and professional sports as distractions from government corruption.

Political entertainment

For those citizens who remain focused on politics despite March Madness, the Superbowl and the latest blockbuster films, the “entertainment” of disputes between political personalities, like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg threatening to knock each other out, acts as a distraction. Musk is generally seen as more conservative since his takeover of Twitter (now X) and claims to protect free speech, making the dispute political as Zuckerberg is openly Leftist.

Political coverage is filled with similar “disputes” as politicians likewise threaten to fight each other, attack each other's families and argue over various symbolic gestures, like standing in line with striking workers, as opposed to policy. Pundit James Melville says this is purposeful:

The government want us to be divided. They want us to squabble over distractions and bread and circuses. Divide and rule is the oldest Machiavellian trick. Instead, we should galvanise our anger and focus on the root cause of many problems in society - malevolent governments.

Mass discontent

The Pew Research Center recently reported on the extraordinary level of citizens' dissatisfaction with politicians.

Americans have long been critical of politicians and skeptical of the federal government. But today, Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative. . . .

Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well. . . .

Positive views of many governmental and political institutions are at historic lows. Just 16% of the public say they trust the federal government always or most of the time. . . . 

A growing share of the public dislikes both political parties. . . .

When asked to sum up their feelings about politics in a word or phrase, very few (2%) use positive terms. . . .

[M]ajorities say all or most politicians are motivated by selfish reasons, including 63% who say all or most ran for office to make a lot of money. [Emphases added].

With hundreds of thousands of unvetted men crossing the boarder, out of control spending devaluing our currency, and hundreds of billions of tax dollars being shipped overseas, an impeachment leading nowhere may later be viewed as an unworthy "consolation prize" in the absence of true policy change; one meant to release the political pressure from the discontented masses.