,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
In evaluating House Democratic leadership's refusal to open an impeachment inquiry, historians' most common comparisons have been (understandably): Watergate (nicely discussed by @KevinMKruse), Clinton's impeachment, and Iran-Contra. But I've been thinking about another one: 1/
In November 2006, in the wake of Dems retaking the House in George W. Bush's second midterm elections, there was also a lot of talk about impeachment. But Nancy Pelosi, who was about to become Speaker for the first time, was having none of it. 2/
archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.co…
archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.co…
As they took power in 2007, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership did what they're doing now. They refused to consider impeachment. They figured that the politically smart move was to look toward 2008 and retaking the White House. 3/
In terms of the electoral politics, this gamble seemed to have worked. 2008 was a fantastic election for the Democratic Party, which retook the White House and expanded its hold on Congress, including, crucially, if only briefly, a 60-vote majority in the Senate 4/
But in terms of holding the George W. Bush administration to account, Pelosi's strategy was an utter failure. Predictably, once W was out of office, there was little appetite to investigate his administration. And its crimes went not only unpunished, but largely forgotten. 5/
And now John Bolton is National Security Advisor and there is a non-trivial chance that he will drive us into war with Iran. 6/
Pelosi's political instincts haven't changed since 2006-7. But there's no guarantee of a repeat of 2008. 2020, with an incumbent president seeking reelection and a much tougher Senate map, looks less good for Democrats than 2008 did (even in 2007). 7/
But, today, there has not been nearly enough talk about the medium- and long-run political costs of Pelosi's refusal to hold the Bush administration to account back in 2007-2008. 8/
This reflects two parallel, unfortunate cognitive tendencies. As historians, when thinking about a potential investigation, we tend to reach for other investigations that took place when looking for comparisons. But investigations that didn't take place are important, too. 9/
Similarly, House Democrats's calculations seem to be weighing the (short-run) political costs of conducting an investigation vs the political gains of doing so. But they don't seem to be considering the political costs of NOT opening an impeachment inquiry. 10/
We historians -- and Congressional Democrats -- need to attend more closely to the last major potential impeachment inquiry that did _not_ happen...and to the costs that resulted from that failure. 11/11
