IMPEACHMENT AND DEMOCRACY

January 21, 2020

IMPEACHMENT AND DEMOCRACY
By Joel Levin

There are righteous claims that surround the impeachment of President Trump, claims about the proper process, the gravity of the offenses, the appropriate legal analogies to criminal trials, and who one should believe about what. Let us put those weighty matters aside and examine a different debate, the one as to whether democracy should be trumped by a vague and murky process of legislators seemingly concerned with illegality. How are we to weigh those concerns – the will of the people (or at least those people in the electoral college) and the disqualifying claims of a successful investigative process – and decide whether a president faced with a renewed look by voters just months before the next election should have his term truncated? That is, how concerned should we be about interfering with democracy?

I want to suggest the answer is not much, for several quite different reasons. To understand why is first to ask why we should care so much about having a democracy: a form of government that counts equally the votes of the ignorant, the hateful, the biased and the mentally challenged with the votes of the competent, the informed, and the unbiased. Moreover, the will of the majority is no guarantee of the rights of the minority, often just the opposite: Hitler was elected Chancellor in Weimer Germany and at least a dozen Presidents and hundreds of elected Congressmen were, to say the least, indifferent to African-American slaves and Native Americans. Why bemoan intrusions to it?

There are, briefly, two kinds of claims in democracy’s favor: an empirical (the best of the bad) and a moral one. Even if the empirical leads to a different conclusion (we could do better, for the sake of argument, by electors constituting an elite chosen for their judgment, fairness, knowledge and incorruptibility, a tall order), the moral argument would remain compelling. It basically is this: we only treat our fellow humans as fully human – with all their human weaknesses and failings – if we accord them the autonomy and dignity of full humanity by leaving the choice to choose their own destiny. That choice may be unwise or imprudent, but we unpatronizingly allow it to be theirs. Essential to how we treat others, the test of any system of ethics, is our willingness to both respect them (dignity) and leave them alone (autonomy). Hence, democracy.

What, then, as to what seems to be interference: impeachment? In theory, it can correct mistakes in voters’ knowledge and judgment, either as mistakes foreseen but ignored or unforeseen but sinister nonetheless. Democracy may not always guarantee the civil rights of the minority, but neither does impeachment (although those trying to remove Andrew Johnson had a pretty good argument that his removal would have improved the liberties of freed slaves). What about the argument from morality: impeachment undermines the autonomous choices of individuals, so it cannot be a good thing. It is certainly a cautionary tale, but is it successful? I suggest it is not, if either of two pillars of morality are endangered. These are the opportunity for future democracy and the centrality of the value of truth. Both, unfortunately, are at issue with this President.

About the Author

 

Joel Levin

Joel Levin

CONTRIBUTOR

For four decades, Joel Levin has been a commercial litigator and civil rights advocate, university teacher and author. His four books include How Judges Reason; Revolutions, Institutions, Law; Tort Wars; and The Radov Chronicles. His play, Marrano Justice, is a historical drama (with music) based on the life of Justice Benjamin Cardozo. He is presently working on Another Way of Seeing Things: Sephardics and the Creation of the Modern World. He received his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Chicago, his J.D. at Boston University, and his doctorate at the University of Oxford. In addition to founding two high-tech companies, he has taught law and philosophy in Russia, Canada and a number of American universities, including, since 1982, Case Western Reserve.

Related Articles

How Donald Trump Can Win A War Against the Drug Cartels

In late January, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Trump’s America First policy pays close attention to the Western Hemisphere. Rubio claimed that previous administrations have overlooked Latin America, and he pledged things would be different from now on.

Israel- Syria: 9 Points about the Situation

The fall of the Assad regime, which was the downfall of a political ideology- Ba’athism, and a minority community -the Alawis, can be somewhat connected to the overall fallout from the events of 7 October and their aftermath. Indeed, the timing of the events in Syria was greatly influenced by the smashing [though not final] defeat inflicted by Israel on Hizballah directly and indirectly on Iran. The Sunni opposition in Syria timed its final assault on the regime, which was in the making for many months, to the weakness of Iran, whose support to the Assad regime was crucial.

America, Embrace Your Inner Empire

As Donald Trump takes the oath of office and prepares to begin his second term as President of the United States, America stands at a pivotal crossroads in its history. The nation must decide whether to continue its post-World War II tradition of cautious global leadership under the pretense of partnership and cooperation or to openly embrace its role as the dominant force shaping the destiny of the world.

The Center is a gathering of scholars, experts and community stakeholders, that engage in research and dialogue in an effort to create practical policy recommendations and solutions to current local, national, and international challenges.

©2025 The Palm Beach Center for Democracy and Policy Research. All Rights Reserved