From the Archives: The Folly of Impeachment

Editors' Note: We're hearing a lot of these days that impeaching Pres U Bum is a terrible idea because 67 Senators won't vote to convict or it's too distracting or the public doesn't support it.  We sent the interns down into Subbasement Level C to see if these concerns had any precedent in the history of the Republic.  And guess what they found?

August 6, 1972

(courtesy New York Times News Service)

Apparently a lot of folks in 1972 thought that impeaching the young, vibrant President Richard M. Nixon was a bad idea because he was protected by his “silent majority.”  (And indeed he won a smashing re-election victory four months after this was published.)

May 16, 1973

Even as late as the following spring, Senators, including representatives of that legendary extinct species, moderatus Republicanus, were telling the House not to push impeachment:

Senator Jacob K. Javits, Republican of New York, and Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Democrat of Connecticut, both deplored here Monday any talk of impeachment of President Nixon in the wake of the Watergate disclosures, while endorsing measures “to get to the bottom of the matter.”

“This isn't a lynching party —as Senators, we all have an obligation to keep our heads even if others are losing theirs,” Senator Ribicoff said  . . .

“I see no evidence that warrants even talk of impeachment,” Senator Ribicoff said. “By tossing the word around before there is any hard evidence that the President is involved, we do a disservice to the American system of justice.”

He said impeachment would be “a shattering experience for the country.” Senator Javits, who was co‐chairman of the hearing, agreed and added:

“Watergate, is hurting us everywhere in the world, and if we ourselves pour gasoline on the fire it won't help. The President can govern effectively only if we realize that we are dismantling our Government by reckless talk of impeachment.”

Spoiler alerts: There was evidence, impeachment didn't shatter the country, and the President couldn't govern effectively because he was a crook.

 June 3, 1973

She's utterly forgotten now but half a century or more ago Clare Boothe Luce was widely venerated in conservative circles as a clever writer and polemicist for the cause – like a female Bill Buckley or a snitty Nicole Wallace. Her pitch on the Times op-ed page was that the Democrats were playing games by not moving immediately to impeach Tricky Dick (perhaps because she knew or at least suspected that the more evidence that was developed, the worse it would be for her boy) :

Everyone who has a shred of pride in his country, who cares more than just a snap of his fingers for its prestige in the world; everyone who doesn't want to see the economy go to pot and our foreign relations endangered; everyone, in short, who is not covered with the malodorous Watergate mud or the feculent smell of partisanship politics wants Watergate to end. But it will not end—it cannot end—until the truth about the President is known.

There are many just and patriotic men in the Democratic party. Now is the time for them to tell their fellow Democrats that the degradation of a President is not a thing to be enjoyed or leisurely licked like an all‐day sucker. The Democratic strategy (as revealed by The Washington Post) of letting the investigation drag on and on and on for partisan gain is an abomination only a little less lawful than the Watergate horror.

A careful step-by-step inquiry was an abomination?  In her defense, Lindsay Graham would agree with her.  To be fair, though, he would probably argue based on his own example that a corrupt Republican President is indeed something to be leisurely licked like an all-day sucker.

June 13, 1973

The following week, a Times dispatch treated readers to that evergreen, Dems in Disarray (emphasis added):

Even among the six liberal Democrats speaking tonight, there was wide disagreement over what steps should be taken.

Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado proposed that the House leadership push through a resolution urging the President to testify before the Senate's special Watergate investigation committee, which is now conducting hearings.

. . . .

While cautioning against immediate impeachment proceedings, Mrs. Schroeder said that the President's only chance for restoring confidence in his Administration was to submit to questioning by the Senate panel.

Representative Fortney H. Stark of California also cautioned against immediate impeachment proceedings, but suggested that Government investigators be required to give the House “all information necessary to make a responsible decision” on whether there were grounds for impeachment.

Others participating in the discussion  . . .were critical of the President and his White House aides but made no proposals for House action.

Mrs. Abzug conceded that some members of the House regarded the possible impeachment of a President as “unthinkable.” But she added that, while it might be tempting to delay, the need for a House inquiry into whether there were grounds for impeachment was essential if the House was to discharge its duties.

. . . .

While talk about impeachment appears to have become more widespread in the House in the last few weeks, there are corresponding efforts to keep such moves in check.

. . .Representative Fred B. Rooney, Democrat of Pennsylvania, told the House that any suggestions for possible impeachment “are premature.” He urged his colleagues to “wait until all the evidence is in.”

Representative Hugh L. Carey, Democrat of Brooklyn, said earlier today that the House should devote its time to coping with such problems as the economy, foreign policy, domestic social programs and American involvement in Southeast Asia.

House Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma has also said in recent weeks that talk about possible impeachment was “premature.”

Why Democrats could not cope with an impeachment inquiry and the economy, foreign policy, domestic social programs and the three Nixonian Wars in Asia was not explained, but in Hugh Carey's defense, no gasbag of the current day has been asked to defend this ridiculous position either.

May 13, 1973

This doesn't strictly have to do with impeachment, but our interns as a bonus found late lamented Elliott Richardson firmly endorsing blatantly unconstitutional Presidential action:

Elliot Richardson, who is now crossing the Potomac from the Pentagon to the Justice Department, says as Secretary of Defense that the Administration will go on bombing in Cambodia if it chooses to do so, regardless of whether Congress votes it the money to do so. It will get the money some other way, he suggests.

Now we know who inspired Establishment Republican and committed institutionalist Billy Barr.

July 24, 1973

By summer, as evidence of Nixon's continuing obstruction of justice mounted, the Congress still did – not much:

George Bush [The name is familiar – Ed.], chairman of the Republican National Committee, also expressed confidence that the President would “fully expose” the entire story.  Mr. Bush defended the President's decision in refusing to disclose tapes of his “private and highly confidential talks with some of his closest aides” and said he felt the people would agree with that decision.

“The President knows the main thing the people want is to get this matter fully disclosed and put to bed,” Mr. Bush continued. “But he is acutely aware of his long‐term constitutional responsibility, Thank Heavens.”

Senator Robert Dole of Kansas . . . was less confident than Mr. Bush that the American people would understand the President's refusal. “I think he was legally right, but I don't think the American people will understand that,” the Senator said. “They want to believe the President, but I just don't know how much longer the people will wait.”

Senator Dole appeared to reflect the view of many in Congress that the key factor in determining where the Water gate affair may lead is public reaction.

“Until public opinion shifts dramatically to loud cries for impeachment, it's not likely there will be a serious move here in the House,” [Representative John C. Culver of Iowa] said.(emphasis added)

As we all know, or at least those of us who lived through it or read about it, public opinion (at that time only 24% approved of impeachment) shifted, and there was a serious move in the House.

But that couldn't happen again, could it?