Maggie Dougherty
Viewpoints Editor
Beginning at 7 p.m. on Tues- day, Nov. 19, Wooster’s Political Science Club and History Honors Society co-hosted a panel on the current impeachment inquiry. The goal of the event was to give students the opportunity to learn more about the process of impeachment, specifically in relation to the ongoing inquiry of U.S. President Donald Trump, making Trump the fourth ever United States President to face impeachment. The panel featured Chair of the Political Science Department Bas van Doorn and Jeff Roche of the history department. Savanna Hitlan ’20, president of the History Honors Society, and Spencer Gaitsch ’22, co-president of the Political Science Club, also sat on the panel in order to moderate and ask pre-prepared questions in addition to those asked by students in the audience.
Roche began the discussion by warning against the common tendency to compare this impeachment hearing to those that have come before, stating, “This is a very different animal and it should be treated as such.” Specifically, Roche warned against comparisons to the impeachment trials of Presidents Nixon and Clinton because of the different political landscapes of those trials. In Nixon’s case, he explained, the Watergate scandal was not characterized by a massive partisan divide over the president, as Nixon was much better at bipartisan cooperation. Rather, impeachment became the only option, and a solemn obligation that the U.S. had to carry out. As Roche explained “there was no joy” over the proceedings, and those who pushed for impeachment were Republicans — members of Nixon’s own party.
Roche also contrasted the current impeachment proceedings to Clinton’s trial. While Clinton’s impeachment proceedings were deeply partisan and political in a way similar to Trump’s, they were not publicly popular and lacked legitimacy in the eyes of many citizens, and support for Clinton actually went up throughout the impeachment trial. Roche pointed out that many people simply were not as concerned by the charges against Clinton, especially because the accusations seemed to be part of a targeted, political attack in which his political opponents had gone out of their way to find any excuse to get him out of office.
Thus, where Nixon’s impeachment was considered a legitimate, bipartisan effort to check a Presidential abuse of power, Clinton’s was not. While Trump’s impeachment proceedings may be reminiscent of the partisan politics that characterized Clinton’s impeachment process, the charges against him are considered by many to be more clear-cut impeachable offenses.
Roche and van Doorn discussed the original justification for impeachment by turning to the Constitutional debate held by the Founders. While some worried that the power of impeachment would give Congress too much power over the executive branch, the memory of the English monarchy was still fresh in their minds, and they decided that impeachment was a necessary power for Congress to counter presidential abuses of power. Having established the Constitutional justification for impeachment, Hitlan and Gaitsch began to ask about the current proceedings.
One of the first questions asked was how the panelists think that the impeachment trial is affecting U.S. international relations. Van Doorn explained that one of the most immediate impacts has been a great level of embarrassment for Zelensky and the Ukrainians. This might, he explained, make diplomats worried that their work could come onto the national stage by getting sucked into political drama through no fault of their own. When foreign service members cannot rely on private back-channels for diplomacy, their jobs become a lot more difficult.
A few questions focused on the benefits of impeachment, even if Trump is not removed. Roche and van Doorn agreed that “there’s every likelihood that Trump will be impeached” through a party-line vote, but that removal from office is unlikely because of a lack of support in the Senate. Even without a chance of removal, van Doorn argued that there is not only a Constitutional necessity to investigate the charges for the sake of precedent, but that it is no longer possible for House Democrats to ignore this. The Democratic base, he explained, has been riled up since 2016, and now that the Democrats have taken the House, there is an expectation that they will hold Trump accountable. Roche added that we have become numb to much of Trump’s behavior, but that, stepping back, these charges should really scare us.
Other questions focused on the partisan nature of the process, and the implications of politicizing impeachment. Roche explained that this is a big worry for him, because impeachment is meant to be a non- partisan check on abuses of power, and that using it as a partisan tool to affect the other party’s president would only create more polarization. Van Doorn pointed out that frequent use of impeachment hearings would also get in the way of true reforms and legislation that the American people need.
Finally, when asked about how to look at information coming out of these hearings, the panelists suggested that students keep an eye on what the accusations actually are and on what those testifying under oath say about the accusations. For students interested in learning more, van Doorn mentioned that Vox has an online guide on impeachment that is comprehensive yet not overwhelming and that answers most questions about impeachment in an objective, fact-based manner.
After the event, which was so well-attended that some students had to sit on the floor to find space, Gaitsch reflected, “I think that [the panel] was a great success. The professors were able to better explain the impeachment process to those who attended, and students were able to ask their own questions in addition to those prepared by each organization.”
Emily Davis ’20, co-president of Political Science Club, added, “These talks by professors allow us to get their educated perspectives on current events that might not come up during class. Since they are experts in their field, it is always interesting to hear what they have to say.”
Both Gaitsch and Davis said that they are in the process of discussing similar events for the future. Marina Roski ’20, who attended the talk, expressed a desire for more information, saying, “While studying the history of impeachment and its possible future effects was very interesting, we wished we had left with a better understanding of what exactly was going on.” Davis urged those interested in learning more to come to meetings with the Political Science Club. “You do not have to be a political science major,” she said, “just someone who is willing to talk about politics from all sides.”