7-25-07, 1:21 pm

Traitor. Betrayer. Shameful. These are the words now being affixed to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, because he has so far refused to take the first steps toward impeaching members of the Bush administration. One former CIA officer even had the temerity (using borderline offensive remarks) to accuse Conyers of being 'no Martin Luther King.'

Since I first wrote on my reservations on the impeachment question, supporting the aims, but ultimately arguing against it on tactical grounds as it would inevitably fail – not likely to pass in the House and doomed to failure in the Senate, needing 67 votes for conviction – and probably would boost the fortunes of the Bush administration, I earned the vitriol of impeachment-now commentators. While the nasty comments never stooped to the level as those slung at Rep. Conyers, I expect, similar remarks.

I'll save them the trouble. I must have been bought off by the corporate system (chuckle) or am a hack (always my favorite), and I just don't understand the political system. I am blind. An idiot. A mouthpiece.

Nastiness aside, let's be blunt. Rep. Conyers is a representative of his district in Detroit, and to the extent that he wields congressional power that extends beyond that, he represents the interests of the whole people, not his party or a vocal minority.

Fifty-four percent of Americans who say they favor impeachment do not uniformly favor undertaking a politically futile effort that would likely hurt other more significant aims such as ending the war and advancing a progressive agenda in Congress now and after the Bush administration leaves office. It is possible to favor impeachment while recognizing that because it won't succeed, it could harm the chances of advancing a progressive agenda in this and the next congressional sessions.

Cite the two polls on impeachment all you want, but claiming that a statistically dead even split on the question is somehow an impassioned overwhelming majority of American public opinion that is ready to force reluctant Democrats and obstructionist Republicans into accepting the removal of members of the Bush administration from office defies logic and reality.

Punishment of the Bush administration for lying about the war and for undermining our civil liberties is something we should support. But our constitutional system was arranged so as to ensure it would only very rarely happen in the halls of Congress. Punishment could be more effectively leveled against Bush's party in the 2008 elections.

I won't dwell on the fact that Rep. Conyers' long career and personal contributions to the cause of peace, social justice, and civil rights far outstrips those of the relative newcomers to the movement who now within the last few months have tried to make impeachment the political litmus test of true progressiveness. For some, impeachment has become the sole obsession and the only means of attaining justice or moving forward on any political front. Rep. Conyers was in the thick of the peace and civil rights movements before many of us were even born.

I won't even dwell on the fact that the racial make-up of the audience at the three forums I have attended which were either hosted by or participated in by Rep. Conyers between 2005 and 2007 did not reflect the majority African American composition of his district, or that most of the people who were at those forums whom I could identify either personally or by organization do not live in Conyers' district, let alone Detroit proper.

But who advocates a congressional impeachment effort now at all costs is beside the point, some will say. Bush will veto any bill or policy proposal we approve of and thus has to be removed, so the argument goes. Usually ignored by the most ardent supporters of the impeachment-now movement is the fact that the pundits on the right are begging for impeachment to become the main and only topic of congressional debate over the next year or so. Who cares what the right thinks, impeachment-now proponents demand.

We all should. There are a couple of reasons the right wants to change the subject in Congress. First, nothing else will get done and badly reflect on the Democrats and perhaps reverse Democratic gains in the next election. But surely, they counter, a Democratic-led Congress can 'multi-task.' Not likely. Republicans would quickly shut down all other business.

If debates on impeachment held sway on the floor of Congress, Republican members can avoid focus on their record of voting again and again to stay the course in Iraq. They can avoid being on the record as voting to kill children's health insurance programs or proposals to combat climate change.

Pressure on Bush or any of the Republicans to end the war or to change their minds on any policy would be instantly and irreversibly lifted.

On the other hand, Republicans would get to defend their president against partisan attacks from a small group of radical liberal Democrats who want to undermine the electoral will of the voters, so their argument will go. And unfortunately there will be just enough people who will believe it to make the slim majority that supports some impeachment effort disappear like all your closest friends in a bar fight.

There is no doubt that many people would come to view Bush as a victim of partisanship. His microscopic approval ratings would grow and his political isolation would evaporate. And the moment impeachment proceedings failed, whether in committee, on the floor of the House, or in the Senate, he would be instantly hailed as a hero, a champion of making government work rather than being bogged down in 'political stunts' and 'partisan maneuvers.' His agenda would even be reinvigorated.

What are some alternatives to demanding impeachment now? First, lay off Rep. Conyers. Divisive attacks on Democratic leaders hopefully won't convince them to change their minds. (The current Democratic Party leadership is the most progressive and politically astute set of insiders that that party has had probably since the New Deal. Not saying much, but the situation is something we the people can work with.)

But changing their minds isn't really the point of the new rage against Conyers, is it? Splitting the antiwar movement and the pro-democracy movement with personal agendas won't convince Congress to take a new course and won't convince voters to look for an alternative, but it would, at this point, re-arm the Republicans with renewed numbers and electoral victories. Not a positive step no matter how you shake or spin it.

Antiwar and democratic-minded activists should focus on pressuring Congress to end the war completely, to restore civil liberties, and to expose the Bush administration and reign it in. We should be talking in a friendly manner with one another about how to advance a progressive agenda on health care, the environment, workers rights, and an alternative foreign policy. Our goal should be uniting the broadest sections of the population against the ultra-right agenda that Bush and the Republicans have adopted and pushed over the last 6 plus years (not to mention the last 13 years).

Calling Rep. Conyers names will not help build the unity needed to win far more important goals than trying to stick it to Bush. Protesting the Judiciary Committee chair won't accomplish this. Only exposing and protesting the real enemies of peace and democracy can accomplish this. Let's join with Conyers and the majority of Americans to be a part of the greater solution rather than the instigators of divisive bickering.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at