Why do the "odds" enter into discussion of the merits of impeachment?

[Dora]

What does it matter what the odds are? Some are arguing against impeachment because "the odds" are against it being successful.

Have we become so conditioned to politics being conducted like a game that we're only interested in pursuing a course of action if "the odds" indicate that we might "win"?

People take action every single day against "the odds" and succeed.

This is not a horse race. This is our government being run by gangsters and thugs. What do the odds have to do with it? What's the rationale?

[MrCoffee]

1. because impeachment is political, not legal.

burden of proof and evidence are but a small part of impeachment.

[Dora]

2. But I still don't get it.

Okay, you say it's political and not legal. Does that imply a different standard of "rightness"?

I'm truly confused. What is the strategic payoff on failing to invest energy in impeachment proceedings?

[rinsd]

9. What is the strategic payoff of failed impeachment?

That is why odds of success are a factor.

[Dora]

11. You answered my question with a question, which isn't an answer. n/t

[rinsd]

21. OK

A failure to convict or worse a failure to impeach would be a victory for Bush and could be a rallying point for a badly floundering GOP.

That is why odds of success should be considered.

[MrCoffee]

12. The strategic cost of failure to convict in the Senate is astronomical

Personally, I think that failure to convict is equal to exoneration. Which is totally unacceptable to me.

If the odds are good that the Senate wouldn't convict, then impeachment proceedings in the House are a huge gamble against 2008.

[Dora]

15. What do you mean?

Really. I don't understand a lot of this stuff. I used to spend most of my time in Cooking & Baking. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I really am confused.


What's the gamble with 2008? Was Clinton exonerated?

[MrCoffee]

19. I believe that he was exonerated

in the court of public opinion. I've discussed the Clinton impeachment with people who aren't political junkies (i.e. 95% of Americans), and the consensus is that the Repubs just didn't like him so they went after him on a technicality.

I don't think that would be the case if he had been convicted.

IMHO, a failed conviction in the Senate would backfire horribly against Democratic candidates for the presidency in 2008, many of whom are currently in Congress. The media never hesitates to paint with the biggest brush they can find, and if there's one thing the Republican'ts are excellent at, it's making fake news.


Edited to add: Unless conviction in the Senate was much much more certain than it is now, bringing Articles in the House is reckless.

[warrens]

3. Go after them legally

Impeachment is a show trial, and basically meaningless. These guys committed high crimes and should face the legal system, not a feel-good expression of disapproval.

[Dora]

5. "basically meaningless"

Is it meaningless, or is it not? If basically meaningless means "mostly" meaningless, then "mostly" is not "entirely" meaningless, which is, in effect, "meaningful."

Explain to me what you mean by a "show trial." If impeachment is a hollow endeavor, then why did Republicans fight so wildly to impeach Clinton?

[mondo joe]

37. The GOP has demeaned impeachment. It is now nothing but a symbol.

And not a powerful symbol at that.

[The Count]

4. MLK quote comes to mind:

"On some positions," King said, "cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question – is it politic? Vanity asks the question – is it popular? Conscience asks the question – is it right?

[Dora]

6. I know what my conscience says...

My conscience says it's right.

[Sapere aude]

7. Because we can't make a decision in a vacuum. You must take into account all factors.

It would be foolish to spend the time we have on a failed attempt to impeach when we have so much work to do that the country needs. I myself do not want the next two years to be a repeat of the Clinton impeachment only it is us impeaching Bush.

If we have real hearings on the facts of the war and all that this administration has done wrong, the public will impeach Bush in the court of public opinion. What we get then is some progressive legislation and the truth being told. Impeachment is a end in itself and nothing positive will be forth coming to the people of this country.

[Dora]

10. What vaccuum? Where is it?

What is the purpose of hearings if the governing body responsible for those hearings subsequently does nothing with the findings?

If we learned one thing from the Clinton impeachment, it's that the court of public opinion had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to Congressional action. The public did not care about the blowjob, neither did they care about the lie under oath. His indiscretion and infidelity was widely perceived as a personal matter (albeit a distasteful one to many). Nonetheless, impeachment was rabidly pursued without the support of public opinion.

If public opinion is supportive of impeachment (following substantive investigations), then it seems that the "court" of public opinion is indeed at work.

[MrCoffee]

14. OK, we're talking about 2 different things now...

From what i've observed, there are (at least) two different impeachment camps here: those that want the 110th to make HR 1 Articles of Impeachment, and those who want to investigate, then impeach.

I'm on the side of the investigators (and the angels, but that's irrelevant). Investigations improve the odds of successful impeachment. Impeachment right out of the gate is a non-starter.

[Dora]

16. Oh, I'm all for investigations.

I believe in due process, research, testimony, and evidence. I think impeachment out of the gate would be hasty and unwise.

[omega minimo]

39. That is the point of agreement.

There is a call for investigations.
There is a call for impeachment.
There is a case for impeachment.
There is a call for thorough public hearings that will proceed to the question: What laws did they break and when did they break them?
Impeachment.

[Jacobin]

8. You don't try to 'take out' the king

unless you are sure you are going to get him, speaking of impeachment, of course

[Dora]

13. But he's not a king.

He's a president, and a miserable failure. He and his phalanx of goons have done nothing but play the system against us.

I assert that it is in our favor to use the system as it was strategically designed (and presciently, I might add) to remove the "elected" official from power.

And "unless" implies consequences. What do you mean?

[Kelly Rupert]

26. It's a saying. "If you strike a king you must kill him."

If you are to go through with impeachment, you would be setting up a major political firestorm, the likes of which we haven't seen since Nixon. If we win, we've eviscerated the Republican party for a few years. If we lose, then we have a triumphant President with a cheering Republican caucus in front of us, and a reeling, defeated Democratic party behind us.

[bobbolink]

54. And if you turn the other way and expediently let it all go...

they are back in a few years, stronger and with more hideous plans for taking down this country.

We made the huge mistake of turning the other way and expediently letting Iran/Contra go. They came back stronger and are the ones who are now making the huge messes we're contending with.

Are we not able to learn from those mistakes?

[mondo joe]

56. Did impeaching Nixon keep them from coming back a few years later?

[bobbolink]

17. Yup, don't charge the rapist, because the charge may not "stick"

Dems= "soft on crime"

:(

[MrCoffee]

18. there's scant similarity between a criminal trial and impeachment

regardless of what you've read in here, the two are not all that analogous.

[bobbolink]

20. Crimes against the nation are crimes.

Impeachment is the remedy ordered by the Constitution.

[MrCoffee]

22. Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good analogy

[bobbolink]

24. It makes people think. Sorry to have offended you.

There's so much disinformation here, and it's our nation, after all.

I'm sure you would have been able to do better.

[MrCoffee]

25. There's a tremendous amount of disinformation, so don't add to it

i'm not personally offended, i just think the criminal trial analogy adds to the confusion of the issue.

[bobbolink]

55. I'm very sorry.

I know you are much more informed.

Sorry.

[mondo joe]

34. Please try to be more accurate. Impeachment is an option given to the House of

Representatives. It is not ordered by the Constitution or anything else.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Are you under the impression that that's *not* how prosecution ought to be done?

One of the key principles of pretty much any criminal justice system is that you don't bring a prosecution against someone unless there's a chance of success.

[mondo joe]

33. Impeachment is not a criminal process but a political one.

Though for what it's worth, no DA has any business bringing charges he or she don't believe will stick EITHER.

[William769]

23. When they Impeached President Clinton (they knew they couldn't win).

Look at all that money that was wasted that could have fed the poor, housed the homeless, given medicine to who needed it...

[Kelly Rupert]

27. And the failed impeachment sent Clinton's approval skyward. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. I'm surprised you even have to ask the question.

For any question in politics (and a wide range of other fields), the basic decision-making procedure should be the same:

1) What is the list of possible outcomes?
2) For each possibly outcome, how desirable is that outcome?
3) What is the list of possible actions I could take?
4) For each action, what is the probability of each outcome?
5) Which action maximises the expected desirability?

If you believe that a successful impeachment attempt and a failed impeachment attempt are both more, or both less, desirable than no impeachment attempt, then you don't need to worry about the chance of success; you can work out the best action without knowing it.

If, on the other hand, you believe - as I do, and as the large majority of those on the left do - that impeaching Bush successfully would be better than not doing so, but that trying and failing would harm the Democrats and be worse than not opening impeachment procedings, then you need to know the odds to work out whether or not it's a good idea.

[TahitiNut]

31. What you describe is based 100% on a consequentialist ethic.

The basic problem I (and many) have with a consequentialist ethic is that it both requires some high ability to prognosticate and ignores any significant ability to distinguish between right and wrong. One of the well-known corruptions of a consequentialist ethic is the belief that the ends justify the means.

It's one thing to espouse a consequentialist ethic and quite another to proclaim it as the sole approach, ignoring deontological ("duty-based") ethical systems altogether.

References ...
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/conseque.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/deon.htm
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/part2/sect8.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/objection_to_consequentialism.html


deontology

Study of moral necessity, duty, or obligation.

A deontological normative theory holds that moral worth is an intrinsic feature of human actions, determined by formal rules of conduct. Thus, deontologists like Kant suppose that moral obligation rests solely upon duty, without requiring any reference to the practical consequences that dutiful actions may happen have.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. No, you've missed the point.

Working out what your duty *is* requires you to perform that calculation -if your duty is to protect your sheep from wolves then you have to work out which action has the highest expected number of sheep protected; if it's to avenge the death of your parents then you need to work out what gives you the best chance of killing their murderer.

There are some sort-of-exceptions - if you decide that your duty is "fight in battle without fleeing" then action and consequence are closely enough linked that you don't really need to perform any calculation, but even there the only reason you don't is that the odds are either 1 (if your choice of action is "fight") or 0 (if it isn't) and those are easy numbers to deal with. But the odds are still what underlies it all.

In this specific case, it's nowhere near that simple. Formulating the duty of an elected representative isn't self-evident, but "do what's best for the electorate" is a large part of it, and it's not immediately obvious which way that ways, so the calculation in this case is non-trivial.

[TahitiNut]

38. (Unreal.)

I can see I wasted my time. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

44. "...do solemnly swear to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States..."

"Formulating the duty of an elected representative isn't self-evident"


100% WRONG!! :hi:

[mondo joe]

45. And HOW to protect and defend is at the discretion of the House. NT

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. So you don't think that serving the electorate has anything to do with it?

Because there are certainly a great many cases where the two conflict; this arguably being one - initiating impeachment procedings arguably (although I think more strongly arguably not) protects the constitution, but would certainly make life in America (and Iraq) for the average man in the street over the next ten years worse.

FWIW, I think that the first duty of the government is to the people, not to the Constitution; although that's clearly also a very important consideration.

Like I said, it *isn't* simple; the fact that you failed to do so proves my point, I think.

[omega minimo]

60. Scare tactics?

"...initiating impeachment procedings... would certainly make life in America (and Iraq) for the average man in the street over the next ten years worse."

Based on what? Why throw out another negative, unfounded assumption?

"FWIW, I think that the first duty of the government is to the people, not to the Constitution; although that's clearly also a very important consideration."

Well, you may think that-- but it is not correct. The duty is to the Constitution; and the people are the government.

One function of the process that the Democrats will initiate will be to educate people about government and correct some of these false impressions and other misinformation.





You said:
"Formulating the duty of an elected representative isn't self-evident"



Their sworn duty (and that of the military) is:

44. "...do solemnly swear to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States..."



What you "think" doesn't alter that fact.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Might Not Be A Horse Race, But If Done Recklessly It Will Be One Hell Of A Dog And Pony Show.

And let's not put the impeachment cart before the investigatory horse.

Investigations first. We'll see where we stand afterwards.

[Az]

35. Because a failed attempt would cost political power

Its the same reason people are so coy about throwing their hat into the ring when running for office. Toss your hat in before you have enough feedback as to whether you would win or not and you cost yourself a lot of political pull. You come off looking like a loser.

Its the same thing with impeachement only worse. Not only would a loss cost us political power due to looking like losers but the economic cost and time lost due to the proceedings would be laid on our shoulders.

[mondo joe]

36. Very simple: Impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process. It is not the sole

responsibility of the House, though it is the only body with the power to conduct impeachment. The House has much to consider - can it be done, and at what cost.

[omega minimo]

40. It's a battle between Strategery and Integrity

How odd, how many folks assume that a case against the crimes of Bushco would fail.


















.

[mondo joe]

41. It's a battle between making real changes or symbolic revenge. NT

[omega minimo]

42. Bushco's "making real changes" to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Unitary Executive Power.

To call holding this administration accountable "symbolic revenge" discounts the magnitude of the offenses.

[mondo joe]

43. Impeachment doesn't hold them accountable.

It doesn't undo what they've done.

It doesn't prevent them from doing more.

[omega minimo]

46. How do you figure that?

[mondo joe]

47. Bill Clinton was impeached.

Was he removed from office?

Did it leave him powerless?

[omega minimo]

48. There are many recent info&link-rich threads on the Impeachment process that may help general...

may help general understanding, beyond the bogus impeachment of Clinton.

[mondo joe]

50. Again, impeachment has been reduced to mere symbol.

Impeachment is a purely political process. It is not a matter of criminal law, or of justice.

[omega minimo]

51. No. It hasn't. See-- that's the battle between Strategery and Integrity right there

If you haven't yet, please read some of the excellent articles/essays/links provided recently on the case for Impeachment.

Then see if you still prefer 8 year old perception management over 230 year old principles of government.

[mondo joe]

57. Then please explain what you think impeachment will accomplish.

Thank you.

[omega minimo]

58. Consider this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934188

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2914104

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2811631

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2837778

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2830486

[Solly Mack]

49. I think your sig line quote answers your question

better than anything

Americans,far too many of them, are more concerned by what an action will cost them than they are in doing what is right for the sake of doing the right thing.

Never mind they lose far more by not doing the right thing than they gain by taking the easy way out.

There's a lot of fear in Americans. Fear of what will happen to them for taking a stand. Fear of how life will change for them if they have to actually sacrifice to do the right thing.

The frogs in the boiling pot of water just call it a sauna and flip over for a more even scald. It's the pot they know. It's the pot they are familiar with...they could jump out of the pot...but what then?

It's not just a case of being lulled (boiled) into complacency...it's fear as well.

[LostInAnomie]

52. Because some idealists think that impeachment happens in a vacuum.

Sure impeaching * is the right thing to do. It would feel great and leave a lasting scar on his already tarnished legacy. The problem is what would happen outside of the impeachment. We know, because of the numbers legislature that even if we could impeach it would be futile. We simply do not have the numbers necessary for conviction. Without conviction * stay in office and the public gets the impression that the whole process was nothing but a partisan waste. They would look for someone to blame and it would be us. The whole process would also serve as a rallying point for the beleaguered Republicans and *. With the razor thin margins that we hold in the senate and house, why would we want to risk returning the legislature to the Repukes over something that is doomed to failure?

The end results of impeachment would be:
- Bush still in office and strengthened by the process.
- A empowered and embittered Republican party.
- A negative public perception of Dems as shrill and weak.

The risks aren't worth getting to tell ourselves that we did the right thing.

[omega minimo]

53. Because some strategerists arguments against Impeachment are vacuous

Hard to say why these negative prophecies are so attractive and convincing to so many DUers.......... and strange that there is such certitude that that's how it would turn out.



"The risks aren't worth getting to tell ourselves that we did the right thing."

See-- this sort of (unfortunately common here) statement is what trivializes the process-- and the crimes of Bushco-- and seems to reflect a lack of understanding.