More On the Impeachment Struggle: Response to Solomon's Response

Portside is again leaning to starboard by sending out Mark Solomon's follow up to his lame attack against the impeachment struggle.

Now Solomon tells us

One can readily agree in principle with those who argued that all elected officials have a moral duty to uphold the Constitution and to pursue impeachment of the Bush administration in the light of powerful evidence of its high crimes and misdemeanors. However, politics (especially in the USA) is not driven by principle, but by power relations and by struggle inherent in those relations. The configurations of power and resulting social struggles are often complex and not given to idealized standards. Such is the case with impeachment where tactical considerations are inevitable.

My word! Why do we have to put up with Mark Solomon telling us to throw our Constitutional principles out the window because "politics (especially in the USA) is not driven by principle"?

Solomon's argument that peace and justice activists should "seek a consensus and unify around shared goals" is only the false logic of assuming the conclusion, that is, his conclusion. If impeachment of the greatest living perpetrator of crimes against peace and justice and humanity is not part of the consensus, then there are no real shared goals, only fake ones.

Solomon portrays himself as the hero who can see through the complexities of the "power relations" of government and steer the rest of us confused idealists through the treacherous shoals of realpolitik. In the end Solomon is just telling us poor misguided idealists to be quiet about impeachment and let our betters in activism decide whether upholding the Constitution is a realistic struggle.

Solomon has his logical knickers in a twist. Our struggle is of the principle, by the principle, and for the principle, so that the principle of the rule of law shall not perish from this Earth.

His words beg the question, why is Solomon struggling so hard against impeachment? If Solomon is not up for the struggle to preserve the principle of Constitutional law, then he is the one who should just shut up and get out of the way!

Post Script: Haven't the peace and justice activists who are opposing impeachment noticed that the Democratic controlled Congress now has even lower approval ratings than George Bush? Those activists providing cover for Conyers and Pelosi are hiding their heads in the sand! The Democrats were elected to stop the war and put this president in his place! The Democrats have refused to do either. These two issues are inextricably entwined and the belief that they can be separated, with impeachment put off the table while we fight against the war, is only playing into the hands of Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership, who after all, are the ones tying Conyers hands on impeachment.

The Democrats had better see the writing on the wall. They had a mandate in 2006 and so far they are squandering it. By 2008 they may be too weak by their self-inflicted damage to keep a majority in Congress, much less win the presidency.

Portside Sides With Conyers To Refuse Impeachment

I love the Portside distribution of information from the left perspective, but frankly, I'm now tired of receiving Portside's tidbits defending Conyers in his indefensible refusal to pursue impeachment. Portside moderators obviously have now taken sides in favor of Conyers and against impeachment of Bush. It shows in the number of postings that continue every tired straw man argument to defend Conyers. Today I received three of these pro-Conyers defense pieces and none pro-impeachment.

This is sad because what is says is that Conyers is being protected against criticism at all costs. It is a shame that in the name of a false unity on the left, where we are being told not to criticise Conyers, that Bush is being allowed a free pass for trampling the Constitution in what ranks among most corrupt presidential administrations in the history of the USA.

Arguments about Conyers' past record have nothing to do with the merits of the question of impeachment and neither does racism. If anything, blacks are more supportive of impeachment than whites, so there can be no credible argument that Conyers is speaking for blacks and whites just don't get it. Sorry, but the criticism of Conyers refusal to impeach has nothing to do with racism, and every time racism is raised as a defense of Conyers it is just plain offensive.

If someone wants to defend Conyers, there is only one way to do that, defend his refusal to impeach the president. Since Conyers himself has not been able provide a palpably real reason for his refusal, maybe one of his supports can. But to date, we only get a bogus charge of racism. Not one of Conyers' supporters, who are thus also protecting the president from impeachment, has presented a non-hypocritical defense on the merits. The only conclusion one can draw is that the racism charge is being used as a wedge to distract and divide the anti-war movement from considering impeachment.

Who is behind this? Certainly not the rank and file of the Democratic Party. Conyers has pushed many odds-against causes such as reparations, for no better reason than it is the right thing to do, when the Democratic Party leadership knew he would get no support and the bills were parliamentarily hopeless. So why is such hopelessness of success now Conyers' only defense? Because now the Democratic leadership see impeachment is actually not hopeless but is at a tipping point in credibility and support. If the Democratic leadership allowed Conyers to push for impeachment as much as he pushes for reparations, then the tipping point would be reached because the leadership would be tipping in favor. Sadly, the white corporate Democratic leadership has ordered Conyers not to allow impeachment, and he is following orders. Why aren't Coyers' supporters and Portside outraged at that racism?