Mundo #27 - Different tune, same ending
Trump's second impeachment stands on charges even more alarming than the first, but it will end the same way
G’day, and welcome to Mundo #27! This week I analyse Trump’s second impeachment, explaining why I believe he will again be acquitted, why the Democrats are unlikely to pursue other options to bar him from holding future elected office, and why, regardless of this, Trump’s political brand will continue to permeate the Republican Party.
And don’t forget to head on over to my other newsletter The China Signal for a weekly snapshot of China’s growing interest in Latin America. I discussed The China Signal in an interview this week with the International Relations Department of my alma mater, the London School of Economics.
Impeachment - A familiar pattern emerging
Impeachment proceedings kicked off on Tuesday in Washington against Donald Trump. Democrats want to convict Trump for his role of "incitement of insurrection" for the siege on Capitol Hill on January 6. If they're successful, they may also pass a resolution requiring a simple majority that prevents Trump from ever occupying elected office again. Despite a round of denunciations in the days following the insurrection by prominent Republicans, the vast majority of Republican senators have now fallen back into alignment with their political base, who remain strongly pro-Trump, and against conviction.
A number of political constraints make Trump’s acquittal highly likely:
Conviction requires a 2/3 majority from the Senate. With the current makeup of the Senate (50 Democrats, 50 Republicans), a 2/3 majority requires votes from all all 50 Democrats, plus 17 Republicans.
While public support for convicting Trump is stronger this time (around 52.5%, from January 20), versus his first impeachment trial (48%), it is heavily partisan. Plus, with short public attention spans and rapid media cycles, support has likely slipped in the 3.5 weeks since this January 20 data. Expecting 17 Republicans to break ranks against views of their base isn’t realistic.
Biden is enjoying a honeymoon period of popularity, but he’s not inclined to spend this political capital over a partisan impeachment fight. Since taking office, he’s made clear his priorities of pandemic recovery and economic recuperation.
However, if I and others are incorrect, you’d expect to see 17 Republican votes first emerge from more liberal Senators such as Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who received a lot of attention during Trump’s first impeachment. The remaining votes could come from a collective of Senators with a history of out of consensus party views and bi-partisan activity. This group includes Senators Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Nebraska), Richard Burr (North Carolina), Rob Portman (Ohio), Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Bill Cassidy (Louisiana), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Jerry Moran (Kansas), and Todd Young (Indiana).
The six Senators in bold print joined Democratic Senators in a 56-44 vote on Tuesday that the impeachment trial was constitutional, suggesting their willingness to vote independently from their Republican colleagues.
Plan B?
There is another option that is entirely independent of the impeachment process. Guided by section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Trump could be barred from future office for having “engaged in insurrection”. Some legal scholars believe a simple majority from the lower and upper houses could enforce this, while most argue a final determination would need to be made by the courts.
Given the Democratic majorities in both houses, such an “opinion” could be expressed in Congress without any Republican support, before heading to the courts for a determination over its enforceability. Obviously, if this was successful, it would face legal challenges from Trump. Such a legal fight would lack the political drama of an impeachment process, but it would still create political waves, prolonging the process as Trump’s base falls back on familiar cries of victimisation over a “political witch hunt”.
From a Republican politician’s perspective, particularly those with their own presidential ambitions, barring Trump from elected office is a tempting opportunity to sideline a rival, but the political costs of publicly advocating this would ostracise them from an essential base of support for the 2024 election. If the Democrats chose to pursue the 14th Amendment, Republicans would almost certainly oppose it. Yet with the Democrat majority, they would get what these contenders quietly yearn for - a base of agitated Trump supporters for them to turn on Democrats, and a sidelined Trump - without getting their hands dirty.
For Democrats, they would have to weigh the political cost of a protracted legal fight, where Republicans would accuse them of pursuing Trump at the expense of more pressing priorities, versus the potential windfall of having him barred from office.
It’s difficult to judge which way it will fall, however given the legal complexities of this pursuit, the myriad of legal threats that Trump faces beyond this that could also harm his prospects of a political future, plus the risk of a political backfire on the Democrats themselves, I expect the Democrats not to pursue the 14th Amendment.
If so, this means Trump will remain a political force. There has been speculation that he may form a breakaway “MAGA” political party, yet as Geoffrey Skelley writes, this is unlikely. Republicans would heavily resist such a move, as it risks splitting the conservative vote. As third party candidates, Theodore Roosevelt and Ross Perot spoiled the chances of their legacy mainstream political parties in 1912 and 1992. The “winner takes all” U.S. electoral system is a serious structural constraint that limits the viability of a multi-party political system, while the required money and state-by-state logistical organisation pose substantial hurdles to building and maintaining a viable third party beyond the Republican and Democrat parties.
So what?
From a political risk perspective, why does this matter, then?
It matters because the Republicans’ rejection of impeachment is another data point showing how the Republican Party’s median voter has shifted from its traditional economic anchor of social and economic conservatism and free trade. Trump’s success in realising and exploiting this with populist politics has been well documented. While Trump remains central as an idea and tone of Republican politics, his populist nationalism now extends beyond him to the broader Party platform. For now, the Republican Party’s agenda will remain wedded to this idea, regardless of the outcome of the impeachment trial.
Go much deeper on the legal grounding of the 14th Amendment in this matter here.