Revolution, not Impeachment.

The pro-impeachment factions on the left have heated up again with the Libby pardon and a recent poll showing 46% want Bush impeached (and 54% want Cheney impeached). What’s the endgame but revenge for Clinton? Pelosi as president? For how long? A couple of months.


You see, for some reason, the left has been seduced by the idea that who the president is matters in every single way. Granted, Bush has been a disaster—but isn’t he more of a symptom? A symptom of corporate control of government and a poisonous conservative ideology run amok? These same forces never stopped attacking Clinton and were successful enough to capture Congress and stop the real progress Clinton could have made.

No, the real change has to be a revolution in the minds of Americans. We have to start accepting as part of our national self-image that even the least among us have worth and that the fact that other countries do things is not reason enough not to do it.

If this is what Ralph Nader meant, he was right that there is no difference between the parties. A Democratic victory in 2008 will result in doing all the same things in a slightly different way, and maybe one major policy initiative, and perhaps a few minor ones.

At least, that victory won’t cause such a change. Only if it is reflective of such a change will it mean anything, and the deep cynicism most people have towards politics makes it even more unlikely that any politician could cause such a change without perhaps leading a Rooseveltian charge against major catastrophe.

2 thoughts on “Revolution, not Impeachment.”

  1. What makes you think that if our government fell today, the U.S. population would replace it with something better? Violent revolutions are bloody business, and there’s absolutely no guarantee that even with the best of intentions the resulting new government would be an improvement over the current one. Indeed, it could be much worse. This is because revolution only makes sense once the people understand the problem. Thanks to a complicit media, most people don’t have the information they need to fully understand what’s currently happening in the U.S., so before we can create positive change, we must help them to understand the situation we’re in. We don’t do that by pushing them away with what appears to be extremism. We must use skillful means to reveal the tyranny of this administration (and government in general). We can do this by making reasonable demands (for instance, that suspicious activities become subject to investigation). Each time we’re denied, more and more people will see the injustice (especially when we take to the streets each time!). Slowly we’ll get enough people on board to create the changes we need, whether our goal is gradual repair of the system or revolution. But either way, the path is the same: First, we try to change the system. When the system shows itself to be tyrannical and unwilling to change, the people will move closer to revolution. If instead, the system allows the demanded changes, then we’ve won a victory — and maybe the theory that the system is hopelessly tyrannical is flawed. The real point is that political change is a process, and we need to have the resolve to see it through. Demanding immediate perfection is unrealistic and counterproductive, and too easily turns into a cop-out for failing to do the hard work of creating meaningful change.


  2. As Cheney is the nefarious mind behind the curtain I think that impeaching him would have a positive impact. Also, the process itself would force so much of what was done in venal secrecy into the spotlight that it might give pause to whomever the next Cheney would be. Impeachment, in either case, would be well deserved instructive cleansing and catharsis.


Comments are closed.