Is Adam Schiff putting the US before his party?

The paramount lesson of Watergate is this: impeachment is a double-edged sword. Sure, citizens felt virtue had been restored to the presidency, but Nixon’s 1974 resignation began eight years of American misery. The Washington Post and Congress did the right thing, but the negative consequences are undeniable. Nancy Pelosi might be prescient: on Friday, she told the Morning Joe audience this is no time “for any joy.”

Democrats have been gathering impeachment steam since Trump’s inauguration. Some, like Maxine Waters, began immediately, while others jumped on the wagon during the Mueller investigation. Now, after a whistle blower complaint, Nancy Pelosi is on board – even if it is not clear whether Trump abused his office or merely exploited the power of his office.

House Democrats will end up making a political point, because 20 Senate Republicans aren’t reckless enough to create a two-thirds majority. On Wednesday, 57% of Americans opposed impeachment (source: Quinnipiac). In light of how Democrats have behaved since 2016, Americans should question whether asking another head of state for investigative cooperation rises to the level of criminal conspiracy.

The Watergate cover-up was an attempt to hide from we the people Nixon’s widespread weaponization of the CIA, DOJ, and FBI for political gain; however, after inheriting so many Obama-era holdovers, Trump does not control a similar imperial presidency. In fairness, after tweeting ad nauseam about spying and insubordination by the Obama-Clinton camp, Trump is probably trying to out bad actors.

The framers of the constitution wanted the electorate to vote out presidents, because the US is a republic of the people, by the people and for the people. For this reason, they designed impeachment to be a near impossibility. History shows that any overthrow of the head of state – even if by the legislature – is internally divisive and externally provocative.

It isn’t certain Nixon’s absence was 100% responsible for America’s demise, but 1974 did mark a turning point in US fortunes. I know because I observed the “down years” first hand, watching how nice guys like Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter flopped in a sharp-elbowed world. This is not a wholesale defense of Trump, but a call to remember how the impeachment medicine nearly killed the nation.

In 1973, a gallon of gas cost $0.39 and the jobless rate was 4.9%. By 1982, the price of gas was $1.31 and 10.8% of Americans were unemployed. In 1974, after Watergate, Dow Jones stocks dropped 27.6%. In 1973, GDP growth was 5.6% and the inflation rate was 3.7%. In 1980, the GDP declined 0.3% and the rate of inflation was 13.5%. Mortgage rates rose from 7.4% in 1973 to 14.8% in 1981. In short, the US economy tanked after Watergate.

Around the world, US allies suffered and US enemies gained confidence. In 1975, Saigon fell to the Viet Cong and Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge; and by 1978, the communist Sandinistas were in control of Nicaragua. US power and prestige hit rock bottom when Iranian mobs seized the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan one month later – and Jimmy Carter remained powerless.

The lesson from Watergate is simple: impeachment has consequences. This is true, and it can be fairly argued that censuring President Nixon, and indicting his agents, would have honored the constitution without endangering the economy or national security. This is legitimate approach to consider in 2019.

The 2020 election is the least risky means of removing President Trump. Why jeopardize peace and prosperity because Trump asked a “favor” of Ukraine, especially after Joe Biden took credit for ousting a Ukrainian prosecutor? If Democrats think a Warren presidency is a good idea, they’d better get ready for a Republican sweep in 2024.

By Spencer Morten

The writer is a retired CEO of a US corporation, whose views were informed by studies and work in the US and abroad. An economist by education, and pragmatist by experience, he believes the greatest threat to peace and prosperity are the loudest voices with the least experience and expertise.