Step 1: He Has to Go
In a post last week, I outlined the What, Why, How, and When of the work in front of us. I said that we must remove Donald Trump from power, because of his attacks on the United States government, through peaceful mass refusal to accept anything his administration does, and as soon as possible. I also said that I would go into depth on each of these. Today, I'll explain the What: removing him.
As Opposed to What
First and foremost, this is an argument for specificity. I see the language of "stopping" Trump used a lot, and of "standing up" to him, but these simply don't carry any meaning. Stop him from doing what? What does it mean to "stand up" to him, and what is the outcome supposed to be? I see vanishing value in talking about strategies until I am certain they have a clear objective, and I only grow increasingly frustrated when I see these phrases. They feel like stalling, or dissembling. So might what the objectives be?
There is No Baby - it's All Bathwater
To "stop" Trump but not remove him would presumably mean stopping only some of his actions. And again presumably, we would be trying to stop the worst ones. But - which ones are those?
From appointing judges like Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, to installing cabinet members like Kristi Noem, to domestic policy that forcibly de-patriates 2-year-old citizens, to foreign policy that blames Ukraine for Russia's invasion, to spreading fundamentally destabilizing falsehoods about the American electoral system, to openly accepting bribes, every one of his actions is a moral apocalypse. There is nothing redeeming, there is nothing to preserve. To stop all of the bad things that he is doing would be to stop – everything that he is doing. Then we are talking about stopping his actions, while allowing him to keep the extraordinary power with which he performs them – or, about removing his power. About lying on top of a bomb, or defusing it. We must choose to defuse.
But We Tried That, etc.
There is a common and earnest argument that we impeached twice, and the Senate refused to convict, twice – so we should not try again. And while perfectly accurate, and I believe always delivered in good faith, I have to say – I am unbelievably tired of this response. I have two reasons why.
The first is that two times is nothing in politics. Trump himself has been officially running for office for twenty five years, with four different registered attempts. It was just 100 days ago that he finally amassed the unprecedented power that he has now. In South Korea, an article from the end of last year counts 29 impeachment motions against different members of the government, just in December. We should not be acting like there is anything special, precious, or limited about our ability to demand a sane, legal government for our country. (And, the recently successful removal of South Korea's president is a deeply relevant and informative piece of history right now – especially when one of the charges was for ordering the arrest of judges.)
Contributors to Wikimedia projects
The second reason I am tired of the We Tried argument, or the No Path to Impeachment argument, is that I am not talking about impeaching him. I am talking about removing him.
But if Not Impeachment, How Then?
The short answer is: Demanding, in every breath, his immediate resignation, or the complete halt to all normal business, whether the demand comes from a Senator, a Retired Admiral, or a longshoreman. The long answer is, I will expand on this in its own post. Today is about What. And what we must demand is his removal.
The Truth Makes Everything Simpler
I think we must do this in large part because – it is what we want. And there is something about telling the truth that makes the rest of life easier. Logic becomes coherent. Paths and necessary actions become clear. We do not have to spend energy promoting ideas that are exhausting, costly, disheartening, and visibly disingenuous. We can describe the world as it is, and get around to the difficult job of acting accordingly.
Perhaps even more critically, we can stop trying to play Whack-A-Mole against a strategy that is defined by its volume. We are now like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, forced to read about, grasp, and respond to six impossible things before breakfast. We do not have the time – and that is the point.
So instead of trying to have coherent thoughts about immigration courts, and the history of concentration camps, and the Medicaid cuts proposed to the budget, and how the Geneva Conventions apply to CECOT, and the text of the 14th amendment, and what the Constitution says about public bribery – all before breakfast – we can wake up every morning with a clear goal, and a clear conscience. Our task is to remove the President of the United States. Because he is the reason all of these things are happening.
A Last Word
If he does get impeached and removed, spectacular. But as I was reminded on the steps of the Capitol today, Nixon wasn't removed by the Senate either – he just realized when the game was up. When every rule we know is being re-written, when every historical precedent seems unsuited, our creativity is equally as vital as our resilience. We must make a clear vision, and we must have faith that if that vision is good, and we share it with enough people, we will find a way to make it happen. Because that is just how the world works.
He has to go.
And if we make it to Tuesday, I'll see you Tuesday.
