Of course, I would love to see president Bush and vice-president Cheney impeached by Congress. Very few things would give me as much pleasure. And there is certainly ample cause for impeachment (see Brad DeLong passim).
But when I went to the polling station today, I voted no on City of Berkeley Advisory Measure H: “Shall the City of Berkeley petition the United States House of Representatives to initiate proceedings for the impeachment and removal from office of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney…” This ballot measure could serve as an exemplary definition of gesture politics. A quick Google of gesture politics suggests the term is primarily British. It means politics as gesture, rather than substance.
Berkeley is an absolutely wonderful place, blessed with great, fascinating people, excellent amenities, a near-perfect location and fabulous weather. But there are plenty of real issues for the Berkeley City Council to spend its time on. There’s too much crime. The schools could be way better, particularly for the children from the most disadvantaged households. Downtown Berkeley remains an unattractive, unappealing shopping district. And on and on.
Do Berkeley politicians really have the time to waste on gesture politics?
Pingback: Scripting News for 11/7/2006 « Scripting News Annex
Didn’t Berkeley also have “though shalt not fly space weapons over Berkeley” on the ballot?
Another example of gesture politics. I’d just love to see how *that* is enforced!
> Do Berkeley politicians really have the time to
> waste on gesture politics?
No, but they seem to revel in it. Therein lies the problem – the politicians, not any specific deal.
If Berkeley residents take the opportunity to eject these goofballs and replace them with leaders who will actually do their jobs (you know, governing local matters within their actual jurisdictions) perhaps Berkeley can overcome its nutty reputation and improve itself.
I’m sorry. Was there an explanation in this post? Why didn’t you vote for impeachment?
If you are saying “Berkley doesn’t have time for gesture politics so I voted against it because its a waste of time” than SAY that.
But its a very weak argument.
The question before you on the ballot was not ‘should Berkley spend time on this?’. You were asked a direct question. You had the opportunity to give a direct answer.
Daniel, the direct question the measure asked was whether the City of Berkeley should petition the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings. My direct answer: no. I thought I was clear that I think gesture politics is a waste of time and a distraction from important local issues.
If my representative, Barbara Lee, asks whether she should agitate for starting impeachment proceedings, then I’d support her all the way. But I think it makes a joke of local politics for it to have the pretence of pronouncing on national or international matters.
I strongly suspect Berkeley mayor Tom Bates supported this measure as a way to bolster his support among the more left-wing voters in Berkeley. Although all electable officials in Berkeley are to the left of the US political spectrum (which is another reason why I’m so positive about living here), Bates is to the right-ish side of left in the Berkeley context. Here was a zero-cost way for him to show his progressive cojones.
Daniel, here’s a different argument against impeachment:
There isn’t enough evidence for conviction.
Remember, an impeachment is basically a trial where, instead of the quasi-random jury one gets in all other US cases, we have a 100 jurors chosen in advance.
Given the evidence we have to hand *right now*, name for me the 67 senators who would convict Mr. Bush.
Mind you, this is exactly why I said the impeachment of Bill Clinton was also gesture politics — it was very clear from the start there would never be 67 votes for conviction.
Just as I would fault any District Attorney for starting what amounts to a frivolous trial (if there is no possibility of conviction), I would say that *both* the impeachment of Clinton as it was, and a speculative impeachment of Messrs. Bush and/or Cheney, is just as frivolous.
I’m open to being persuaded otherwise — but present your evidence, and tell us the 67 senators you think will vote to convict. Name names. Show me.
Oh, and again, just as I said at the time there was no possibility of Clinton resigning, there is no possibility of Bush resigning. So that option is closed.