Peggy Noonan never fails to disappoint. Her latest opinion piece on impeachment in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Impeachment Needs Witnesses on Both Sides” published in the January 25/26 Weekend Issue demonstrates, at least to me, that she lives in an echo chamber or a “cone of silence” bubble that allows no contrary points of view or any serious reflection before or after the fact regarding President Trump’s impeachment. Moreover, in my opinion, she writes merely to impress not to inform about impeachment. There is a danger in such a writing style.
Perspective
First of all, let’s be clear on one point. Opinions are not necessarily based on facts. I would submit that most of the time, they are not. How opinions are formed, however, continues to be a mystery to me and will always remain so? I agree with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, though, when he famously opined that “Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not their own facts.”
Opinion pieces are just that, opinions. I would prefer that they are based on facts and experience, but that notwithstanding, they, at least, are susceptible to judgment based on the facts.
The Opinion Piece
In fairness to Ms. Noonan, I must say that the first paragraph of her opinion piece is excellent and almost brilliant. That is, when she writes about the genius of the Founders and remarks that “these were not shallow men” and that “we came from something magnificent and are the heirs to that magnificence.” Those statements are juxtaposed next to this however, “…It is not terrible for the young to witness a certain gravity emanating from Congress.” I cannot understand how she can write that sentence in light of the actions and public statements by the House Democrats during the impeachment inquiry.
I find the best approach for me to critique her opinion piece is to quote a sentence or paragraph and then comment on it. Let’s begin.
Ms. Noonan: “I believe the president is guilty of shaking down the government of Ukraine for personal political gain, that he has rightly been embarrassed for this, and that the fit final punishment with an election coming was censure, not impeachment. But we are where we are, and the proceedings can be enriched if both parties unclench and let this thing broaden out.”
Comment/Critique: Ms. Noonan makes a statement that the President is guilty but does not support this statement with evidence of any kind. She calls for censure for whatever happened and not impeachment. Previous presidents have made many decisions for personal political gain with their foreign counterparts, but I have never read any statement from anyone that censure was suggested or required. Ms. Noonan also states that “…the proceedings can be enriched (?) if both parties unclench and let this thing broaden out…. “ This statement is akin to the following approach in business or life: We made an egregious mistake here. We can correct it (enrich it?) by making it deeper and broader. Such an approach is a study in absurdity.
Ms. Noonan: “The key to deepening things, capturing the essence of the argument and satisfying the majority of the people is three words: Witnesses, witnesses, witnesses. History deserves them, the public wants them, according to polls, and will not be fully served without them.”
“Both parties are thinking of their own needs, which is what parties do. But when you open the door to impeachment, there’s a third party in the room, History. It too has its needs and they are less selfish than those of the political parties. History wants information. It wants data and testimony. It wants as near as possible to know and understand the story.”
Comment/Critique: One has to wonder why the witnesses called by the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Messrs. Schiff and Nadler respectively, did not capture the essence of the argument, if any essence was to be captured. From a layman’s point of view, the House of Representatives is charged with preparing the impeachment case. The House Impeachment Managers present the case to the Senate as the jury. In simple terms, the Senate votes on whether the House has proven the case or not. If the House failed to do a thorough job because of ineptness or political expediency, then shame on them.
As to satisfying the majority of the people: how does she divine this? Polls are not effective in capturing a real sense of the will of the people, even if only a majority of the people is sought. In this situation, a simple majority should not suffice in any case. I would want to know what a significant majority, say, 70% or 80% of the people have on their minds regarding the trial by the Senate. That is clearly not doable.
History and the historians who will write that history will have ample time in the years ahead to get to the truth buried under the obfuscations and hearsay evidence that we have seen over the last few months. Such research and informed analysis are not possible given the current situation. Moreover, I do not believe that adding four witnesses, such as Ms. Noonan suggests, will change anyone’s opinion or significantly increase the informational value of the case presented.
By the way, I disagree with Ms. Noonan’s statement about History being the third party in the room. I believe the third party is the American people. And, they deserve better than all the political nonsense and political theater that has been conjured up over the last three years regarding President Trump. Ms. Noonan does not appear to want to acknowledge that perspective.
Ms. Noonan: “Scrub this saga as thoroughly as possible and then leave it to history, which will find in it valuable material as to the ways and mores of early 21st-century American politics.”
Comment/Critique: I find this statement fascinating. Nothing is ever scrubbed totally in American history. History will record that President Trump was impeached, and we must remember what Nancy Pelosi opined recently, to wit: “President Trump will be forever impeached.” I would be remiss if I failed to remind Ms. Pelosi that the same can be said about President Andrew Johnson and President Clinton, and the American Republic survived. I might add for effect that no one remembers the names of the respective Speakers of the House in those two impeachments.
Conclusion
I could easily write a few hundred more words on the remainder of Ms. Noonan’s opinion piece, but my post is much too long already. Let me close, however, with the following thoughts.
In my opinion, President Trump was impeached as a political exercise. He will be exonerated because the case will not be proved, nor can the case be proved. I write this because there was no case to be proved, despite the aforementioned political theater. The most significant point that no one should forget is that whatever the details of the Ukraine affair, it never rises to the level of Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors that the U.S. Constitution requires.
Outbound Link to The Asian Antiquarian: https://theasianantiquarian.com/
Internal Link to A Hub of Blogs: https://whitebeardwisdom.com/
