The Flaunting of Corruption

Ambrose Bierce, a remarkable man, has been mentioned by me before in the blog.  Soldier of the Union in the Civil War, journalist, author, wit (though a bitter wit; hence his nickname "Bitter Bierce").  He vanished after leaving our Glorious Republic for Mexico in, I believe, 1917.  We don't know his fate.  Before disappearing, he said and wrote many things which I think astute.  You can read one of them, above.

From out of the past, a quote which seems utterly appropriate to the present.  But what was sardonic humor then is now a statement which can fairly be called "unimpeachable" (pardon the pun), meaning not to be doubted, entirely trustworthy.

That the statement is true has been demonstrated in the (un)impeachment proceedings in the Senate of our Great Nation.  Not only has it been demonstrated, however.  It has been expressly stated by Republicans and their lawyers, who have claimed repeatedly that politics is indeed the conduct of public affairs for the benefit of a particular individual, in this case the president.  Therefore, there is nothing wrong with it, or at least nothing impeachable about it.  Most significantly, it constitutes a defense against all claims of corruption or abuse of power, as far as these worthies are concerned.

There is something odd about the claim that the authors of the Constitution did not mean impeachment was appropriate in the case of abuse of presidential power for the president's own benefit.  How likely is it that the drafters of the Constitution believed that a president could be impeached only if guilty of a crime?  Were they concerned that the president would rob a bank, kidnap someone, murder someone, vandalize something, beat his wife?  No doubt such crimes would result in impeachment by any reasonably sane members of the Congress, but is this what they feared?  It strikes me that what they feared was that the president would abuse his power in some fashion; he would use the powers of his office to commit wrongdoings.  That, after all, is what their concern ultimately was in establishing a nation--the use and misuse of the power of government.

That there are lawyers who would gladly make the argument that impeachment cannot be based on abuse of power reminds me of why the profession I chose is held in low esteem.  To an extent, a lawyer is required to make the argument his client wants him to make, so it may be said that these particular legal practitioners are just doing their job.  But a lawyer generally is not required to represent anyone, and it is terribly short-sighted to take the position that in effect sanctions the presidential use of power for his/her own benefit.  Sometimes a fee shouldn't be a lawyer's only concern.

If our politicians have accepted that they may conduct public affairs for their own benefit, and are eagerly seeking to convince us that is the case, as seems quite clear, it appears that our system of government has been perverted.  But it also appears that our politicians know this and are content with it.  Perhaps they relish it.  They certainly seem to be flaunting this corrupt conclusion.

Perhaps the president should be credited with realizing the depth to which our government has sunk.  Being what he is, he is simply taking advantage of it.

Being what we seemingly are, we don't particularly care that he does so, or that many of our political leaders want only to be of assistance to him.