The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
Every day in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump has brought captivating new revelations. What heretofore had seemed impossible now might seems likely --- perhaps.
On January 28, the New York Times reported that as many as ten to twelve Republican Senators might be willing to vote for the appearance of witnesses and documents after both the prosecution (the House Managers) and the defense (Mr. Trump’s attorneys) have presented their cases. However, there may also be a few Democratic Senators who may vote not to allow witnesses or documents.
Why would any Republican Senators vote to do what Mitch McConnell has desperately been trying to keep them from doing? And why would a few Democratic Senators vote to do what Chuck Shumer has desperately been trying to keep them from doing?
The answer to that is quite simple, although it may not be immediately obvious. All of these wavering Senators live in purple states. Their constituencies are neither strongly red (Republican) nor blue (Democratic). Citizens there are presumably politically more independent than in most of the fifty states, which, if true, is quite unusual.
However, the fifteen or so Senators who are considering voting against their Senate party leaders may be doing so not because they believe it is right but because they think it is prudent. They fear they might lose their election if they do not vote the way the majority of voters in their party desire. That is especially true if any Senators are on the ballot in 2020.
Hard core voters, not independents, from both parties are the ones most likely to vote in elections. What they think regarding witnesses and documents in the Trump trial may determine whether particular senators are re-elected, ten months or two or four years hence.
Both sides give high-minded rhetoric to support their positions regarding an impeachment conviction or acquittal. The truth is that too much of the thinking of every senator (or House member) is based not on what is constitutionally and ethically the correct position, but on what is most likely position for them to take which shall result in their own re-election.
If there were term limits for all federal political positions (presidents, senators, House members, and judges), politics would perhaps be somewhat less partisan and based more on the obvious benefit of the nation. Nothing so illustrates that fact as the likelihood that perhaps a dozen Republican Senators might vote to call witnesses, and three or four Democrats might vote not to call witnesses. And all or nearly all these Senators represent purple states.
If there were term limits, I suspect that there would have been a unanimous Senate decision before the deliberations on Mr. Trump’s impeachment began to have witnesses and documents presented in the trial. Judicial principle requires that in all trials. The lengthy charade to which the Senators have already subjected themselves and the nation would have been unnecessary.
Any federal official who is impeached and convicted should be removed from office on principled constitutional and ethical grounds, not on political grounds, even though every impeachment invariably has political ramifications. The possibility that only a dozen or more Senators may vote against their party leaders’ pressure is indicative that term limits might make politics a more laudable vocation. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers never imagined professional politicians anyway; such an idea would have been anathema to them.
We live in a fallen world. Term limits might elevate it a very small fraction. If so, politics and the United States of America would be better off because of it.
- January 28, 2020
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.