What was the plan to regain US government trustworthiness if Trump wasn't impeached?

(I hesitated to post this question last week as I thought it might contentious, but since actual in-name impeachment inquiries are now occurring I feel it’ll work better.)

Trump’s presidency has been a pretty sad chapter in democracy - by virtue of having zero shame and treating both written laws and unwritten convention with the same complete and total disregard, he’s shown a remarkable ability to sidestep what anyone would consider to be obvious and immediate consequences.

That said, it seemed like the plan for many people who recognized this was not to impeach, based on the idea (that I admit I can see an argument for) that should this fail it could galvanize Trump’s base in to re-electing him in 2020.

My problem with this is that even if the Democratic party had waited things out and subsequently won a landslide 2020 victory, they would be inheriting a country where the rule of law demonstrably had no sway. Nobody either within or outside the US could trust anyone in any of its institutions on elections, trade, treaties, the environment, anything, ever again.

So how would that have worked?

On a quibble, it’s been a sad chapter in history.

Democracy doesn’t provide any guarantees as to the quality or competence of those it elects. What matters is how it (or more correctly the constituency) respond to poor governance.

The problem (from my perspective) is that the faction who put Trump in office seem happy with Trump in office.

So any process to short circuit the term in office, is to effectively disenfranchise that (near) majority who voted for Trump because he is Trump. “You are so dumb, your vote doesn’t count” is a bigger assault on democracy than electing Trump.

I don’t accept the premise, you seem to be confusing law and democracy.

Can’t talk for “within the US” and likely am unrepresentative of “outside the US”, but the rest of the world is pragmatic, we’ve had the odd moment of faux democracy ourselves, and perhaps we don’t have the US on the same elevated pedestal you seem to put it.

The legitimate means for the US to reaffirm it’s political institutions is at a bog standard election, where that oversized US bloc that didn’t vote decides to front the ballot box and that bloc that was Trump 2016 decides their interests are not best served by Trump 2020.

In a democracy, the desires of the people rule the day. The law is the mandate of the people.

In a republic, a minority of professionals in governance have a clear duty and job to execute the laws and see to it that they are faithfully followed.

In a democratic republic where the the emphasis has moved from the latter word to the former, the representatives in government are fearful of acting without the approval of the people, while the people look to the representatives to tell them which way they should be cheering for. This creates a catch-22 standoff and leads to crisis, because it ultimately comes down to the people and the people simply don’t have the information nor time to govern. See Brexit and the political inability for anyone to deal with Trump.

So, it wouldn’t have worked. No one is offering a plan. The closest that I have seen is a recent Elizabeth Warren position piece to recreate the Office of Technology Assessment which is a good step to take but, almost certainly, insufficient.

My expectation is that the Democratic party’s general plan is to continue on with the country as it is and trust that the Constitution is sufficient. It has worked until now and, to the extent that it doesn’t some times, it was at the will of the people and fundamentally the government works at the will of the people. This is as opposed to working as the embodied representatives of the people, granted the trust to execute their work in freedom.

Now, possibly, the system will go back to working after Trump. But, personally, I think of Trump as a symptom of growing polarization, the increasing treatment of political issues as team sports, and the ease of both physical and intellectual movement of people to join people whom they agree with (whether that be the Internet or moving away from the Deep South to go live in New York).

And, worse, I believe that it’s necessary to understand how innovation works and what that means for our systems.

Innovation doesn’t create something out of nothing. When we learned how to ride horses, the horses didn’t fall out of the sky all of a sudden and immediately become usable. The horses were there running around all the time for hundreds of thousands of years. At any point in all of that time, a human could have grabbed one, broken it, and started to ride it around. But until someone did, no one did. Once they did, everyone did. The raw material was there, but no one had the right idea or - having the idea - couldn’t figure out the set of techniques to make it work.

Cars existed for a hundred years before someone figured out that you could drive them into a crowd of people, as a means of mass murder. In retrospect, it may seem like something that should have been obvious and yet it just didn’t happen. But now that it’s a thing, it will continue to be a thing.

There are people in the world with a direct aim of breaking the Constitution and they’re doing a good job at narrowing in on the right technique.

And by that, I mean less Donald Trump and more Mitch McConnell.

In Japan, the Prime Minister is fully acknowledged to be a fall guy for The Party. That role exists to serve as a buffer against unpopular policy. If some policy goes wrong, that the party decided, then they blame it on the PM, axe him, put in some other idiot who’s good at distracting everyone, and try a different policy or try to implement it more slowly.

Ultimately, good government requires smart people to be in charge but electoral systems aren’t particularly good at that.

If the people are electing, then there’s very little to prevent the election from becoming America’s Got Talent, so far as what the people are looking for - entertainment and spectacle. To be sure, we used to do some amount of trying to elect for intellect and reason but, as said, innovation.

And if the parties are electing, then you’re giving all of the power to a single party for a while and, over time, that encourages single-party rule and that power will be used to propagate their success forward. In Japan it happened early. In the US and the UK, it’s still migrating that direction.

Ultimately, this leads the parties to internally select a leader and give them the power, while outwardly still running things in accordance with the constitutional setup.

Mitch McConnell (who, I would suspect, is the unofficial person in this role) loves the idea of a single-party state and the RNC have gotten some good experience through Bush II and Donald Trump exactly what sort of person is good as President in terms of being pliable to their desires, directing attention away from them, but being popular with the people.

At the moment, they haven’t yet landed on the sort that the Japanese have discovered, but they are certainly narrowing in.

And, idiot though he may be in most things, Trump is a genius at taking advantage of polarization and distracting the media - the one part of the system that’s not an official branch of the government - and many will learn from that. Trump’s “Caravan / George Soros” venture will prove to be a very strong template for future elections.

Mitch McConnell is the sort of slimy bastard to have noticed that, and I’m sure that Trump is collected a good supply of people who are good at using those same techniques, whom McConnell can hire on after Trump goes to jail.

The issues that need to be dealt with require more than having an Office of Technology Assessment. Even if McConnell isn’t the guy to move this to the next step - I’m not saying that this is our future - we have still seen a system that has clearly failed to operate in any sane way and that, eventually, some innovator will act to explicitly take advantage of those same things - and do so effectively.

The problem is, to make those changes, you have to choose country over party - but the only people who get into office are those chosen by the parties. And you also have to reduce democracy - but democracy has been advertised as the end-goal of the country for a hundred years, despite that being in conflict with the explicit words and ideas of our founders. Reversing that idea will take a long time and it’s to neither party’s advantage to reduce democracy. Democracy is the key to establishing and maintaining party power since the people are easily mobilized to back sports teams.

If the presidency of Donald Trump wasn’t a big enough shock to the system for the Democratic candidates for President to even be talking in the slightest bit about how to fix the system, then we can reasonably expect the country to continue to march downhill. The Democrats may well continue to elect somewhat reasonable and sane people to the Presidency and so give us some time to go forward, in sanity. Moscow Mitch might pass away, retire, or lose his position to someone else and someone more boy-scoutish, like Paul Ryan, might take over the position and rope the RNC back towards a more patriotic view of its role in the world.

But polarization isn’t just an aspect of the parties fighting each other, it’s also an aspect of TV, internet, physical mobility, and other things. Polarization isn’t going to shrink on its own and, so long as it exists and isn’t being mitigated, it’s going to continue to empower the worse and more predatory members of the parties. Eventually, one of them will move to stage II.

Your first mistake in all this is posting from the position that everything was fine and dandy prior to trump and then all of a sudden Trump is elected and the house is on fire.

When in reality it’s been on a downward slide for a decade. Trump is a symptom of an underlying disease, not the disease itself.

How to fix it? One party has to get out of the fuckin gutter and start leading/inspiring.

That’ll never happen though.

The first order of business to restore confidence in democracy and rule of law post-Trump, and which would require both his defeat and the removal from power of his faction and not just removing the man himself, would be to codify into proper law all the things that for whole lifetimes we just assumed elected or appointed officials, or aspirants thereto, would or would not do or have expected from them, but which in fact were based solely in a sense of “Unwritten and often Unspoken Expectation of Reasonable Decency and Decorum”. 'cause really all the likes of Trump and McConnell have been doing adds up to “Where does it say I can’t do that?” and “Who’s going to come in and actually stop me?”

I don’t really get this line of argument. At the time when he was elected, Trump hadn’t committed the acts for which he is now likely to be impeached. (One could argue that a reasonable person could have predicted that he would be likely to do something along similar lines, but a prediction isn’t a guarantee.) So, how does removing him from office for a bad act committed after people voted for him disenfranchise those people or imply that they are dumb? By that reasoning, it would be disenfranchisement and an assault on democracy to remove any elected official for misconduct at any time.

Honestly, if in some alternate universe Hillary Clinton became president and then got caught conspiring with a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a potential 2020 opponent, I would be unhappy and disappointed in her, I might have a hard time believing the charges at first, I might even try to convince myself the misconduct wasn’t serious enough to warrant impeachment – but I don’t think I would feel that anyone calling for her impeachment was calling me dumb. Nor would I feel particularly disenfranchised, unless by some bizarre twist of events we ended up with President Ryan instead of President Kaine at the end of it.

Trouble is, the list of new laws would prove to be infinite.
I mean, you’d have to include EVERYthing that it would be illegal for the president to do, in detail.

  • Ha, you forgot to say explicitly that it’s illegal for the president to crap in his pants on the National Mall.

  • Whoops, you said that the president cannot accept money from foreign leaders, but you said nothing about the first lady!

  • I am ordering the bombing of Canada - just for the hell of it. Nothing can stop me! ha ha!

I doubt there is one.

Passing new laws would be blocked by the republicans to codify all the things that used to be considered decorum and professionalism but we now know we can’t rely on (laws against nepotism, laws requiring a presidential candidate to undergo legitimate independent medical exams, laws requiring them to release their taxes, etc).

Also the world knows that the 63 million people who voted for Trump aren’t going anywhere. Trump is the symptom. He is a symptom of a nation so mired in white nationalism that we will abandon all morals, intellect and competence as long as someone is on the ‘right’ side of the culture wars. The world knows we aren’t competent to lead and will just look to Europe and China to lead, no matter who wins in 2020. America is going through the same civil war places like Pakistan are mired in. On one hand you have traditionalists who believe in religious fundamentalism, sexism, racism, authoritarianism, etc. and on the other you have the reformers who believe in egalitarianism, democracy, rule of law, etc. The US is too dysfunctional due to this civil war to lead.

Because the 63 million people who voted for Trump will turn around and vote for another dangerously incompetent white nationalist in 2024 or 2028.

If impeachment was a legal process, weight of evidence, presumption of innocence and all that legalistic principles malarkey your point holds.

But it’s a partisan political process. It’s “your guys sticking by your guy who their guys are sticking it to.”

Plan? To renew trust? Trust a government that’s been rogue since Geo. Washington started breaking Indian treaties? Constitution says treaties are the law. Ha. Ha. Trust a government that’s been world-class corrupt for most of its existence? There’s a plan?

(America’s problem isn’t corrupt politicians, but that they’re pretty inexpensive. College coaches take bigger bribes to deliver less.)

Tramp lost the vote. Say again: Tramp lost the vote. A candidate could take 28% of the national vote, and the White House. Who could trust that result? Some state legislatures and congressional blocs are run by thugs taking 55-60% of seats with 40-45% of votes. The losers win. Do losers rule well? Who can trust such results?

(Eisenhower said a party without morals is only a power-grabbing gang of thugs.)

Side note: Forget that republic vs democracy crap. Most US constitutional rights (look-em up) are VOTING rights, i.e. democracy to pick our republic’s representatives and executive. Other republics don’t bother with a voting charade. Move to China or DPRK or Congo for the full republican experience.

I don’t think I am - for some time Trump has been openly flouting emolluments restrictions. Other countries have confidence votes that can immediately bring down goverments; from what I can see, impeachment is the legality to deal with the US 4-year fixed-term in the face of a criminal president.

I don’t know where you get that idea - like most Canadians I live in perpetial annoyance with the US (possibly excluding Obama’s tenure), but it was always understood that whatever agreements the current Whitehouse signed, the next one would honour. Trump has thrown that out the window.

That’s a lot to think about. I’ve long thought that the lack of a third (or even more) parties in the US has lead to a polarization of note just US politics but of a number of other things too. While I can vaguely mark my coworkers from “left” to “right”, we can still discuss discrete issues at lunch if we want, and I don’t consider myself beholden to any one parties platform. In the last municipal, provincial and federal elections I voted for 3 different parties.

I never said the previous governments were amazing, but at the very least they paid lip service to the laws they were meant to be following.

Well, I certainly agree that the electoral college system has long outlived it’s purpose. Maybe I’m still just being naively idealistic on the rest.

Sounds great (and I’d be all for it) but I don’t think that could ever have a hope of even being discussed without Trump’s impeachment, not just defeat. Even if resoundingly voted out of office, it would leave room for someone in the future to perform the whole circus act again, even worse. It sounds juvenile when I write it, but I believe Trump has to face actual legal consequences for his actions, not just ones at the ballot box.

The real issue as I see it wasn’t so much that Trump got elected, but rather that Republican Senators and Reps doubled down on his bullshit out of party loyalty and/or fear, rather than acting for what’s right or legal.

THAT is the big problem- they’ve entirely abrogated their responsibilities to keep the Executive branch in check out of craven self interest.

The best way to bring back some measure of trust is to vote him out. And get a dem majority in the senate.

That wont fix everything but it would be the will of the people and a start.

Impeachment is currently not wanted by the American Public, so impeachment would lower trust in the government.

Lol. Voting rights are one of the most weakly protected and unspecified rights in the Constitution.

From where did you get this idea?

Yes but their self interest is based on Trumps voters being highly loyal. Trump has about a 90% approval rating from GOP voters, and GOP politicians know it.

If GOP senators and reps expected their voters to be mature, moral, intelligent people they wouldn’t back Trump. Yes they are motivated solely by self interest but sadly their self interest requires appealing to the worst impulses of some of the worst people in the country.

Pull up the USC on your screen. Search for the word ‘right’. Count and locate the hits. Notic how many cover voting. And consider that ‘rights’ imply responsibility. You can hand it over to me by neglecting to vote. Don’t worry, pal, I’ll cast my vote responsibly, heh heh.

Do legislators ignore the USC when convenient? Vote-em out. They are enemies.

While at it, search USC articles for ‘freedom’; count and locate the hits. I mean hit. Just one. And it’s not “nothing left to lose,” as a West Point graduate wrote. We have FREEDOM of speech and the press, period. But no freedom of sedition.

Umm, perhaps the polls which have been linked to in various threads about a dozen times now?

The polling we have so far mostly shows an uptick in support for impeachment. But according to the initial polls at least, public opinion doesn’t seem to have shifted dramatically from where it was following both the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on April 18 and Mueller’s testimony before Congress on July 24. The majority of Americans still do not favor impeachment, although more than two-thirds of Democrats do…

Finally, just over the last day or so, some polls now show a bare majority in favor of a impeachment *inquiry.
*

I hope serious pollsters clearly explain to the polled the differences between a Congressional impeachment inquiry (gathering evidence), a Congressional impeachment (indictment on charges for trial), a Senate trial conducted by CJOTUS, and conviction and removal by the Senate.

How many Americans, and likely voters, want him either gone or retained no matter what else happens? How many are eager for the process to proceed? How many wish this would all just go the fuck away?

Are pollsters asking about government trustworthiness after various outcomes? Is trustworthiness now a dead horse, never to return?

I’m not so sure it’s necessarily pandering to the “worst impulses of some of the worst people in the country”, as much as there’s a very large bloc of voters out there who are absolutely, positively convinced in as ironclad of a way as possible, that the Democrats are (pick any 4 below), and that voting Republican is the only way to defend against this terrible encroachment on our basic rights and freedoms.

[ul]
[li]Wanting to take your hard-earned tax dollars and give them to shiftless people.[/li][li]Wanting to force you into a government-run healthcare system that will give you less choice and less coverage[/li][li]Wanting to raise taxes on the middle class/rural people for the benefit of people in urban areas[/li][li]Wanting to be soft toward our foreign enemies (who need a good ass-kicking)[/li][li]More concerned with trying to make everyone equal rather than clearing the way for everyone to succeed.[/li][li]Wanting to tell you what you can and can’t buy as far as vehicles go.[/li][li]Tie our countries even more tightly to NAFTA and the UN and thereby reduce our sovereignty and independence.[/li][li]Take your right to self defense away because some morons in the inner city can’t manage not to be criminal and shoot each other up.[/li][li]Restrict your freedom as to what you use for that self-defense, because of some mentally ill lunatics who do crazy stuff, while tens(hundreds?) of millions of law-abiding gun owners have no issues whatsoever. [/li][li]Planning on using your hard-earned tax dollars on illegal aliens, who not only are not citizens, but who are de-facto criminals by virtue of being illegal aliens. (this is doubly bad in their mind- not only are we spending American tax money on non-Americans, but we’re spending it on *CRIMINAL *non-Americans.)[/li][/ul]

Now we know this is a very skewed and somewhat incorrect viewpoint, but it’s one they old- I’ve had the misfortune to have some interaction with my brother-in-law’s brother in law (his sister’s husband- my wife and I call him ‘Cletus’, after the Simpsons character). He’s like a walking, talking tea party/super-conservative meme spewer. This kind of thing is really what worries him- I spent most of a family gathering mocking him about how stupid what he was saying is. He was going on about how CAFE requirements for vehicles were just a way to stick it to the country people, and that Obama wanted to put us onto the “Amero” with Mexico and Canada, and how Obama this, and Obama that, etc… Surprisingly none was actually outright racist, but it all had a very large flavor of Democrats=sissified urbanites who want to patronistically solve the problems of the urban poor at the expense of the larger, rural/suburban middle class, who are already put-upon, and don’t need this bullshit, and think the sissified urbanites should STFU, and the urban poor should suck it up because they’re responsible for their own problems.

And I’ve heard basically the same thing out of some others in my family and in my wider social circle, although not as bluntly idiotic as what Cletus spouts.