The Historical Implications of Impeachment for 2020
From Johnson’s dispute over appointment powers to Nixon’s break-in to Clinton’s adultery, the American public has experience with impeachment. Still, the circumstances surrounding the latest impeachment inquiry are unprecedented. Never before has the name of a sitting U.S. President facing an impeachment inquiry appeared on the ballot as it will in November of 2020. Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment in the second terms of their presidencies, making them ineligible to run for re-election. However, as a first-term president, President Trump’s re-election campaign has marched ahead at full speed despite an impeachment inquiry investigating his attempts to garner Ukraine’s help in investigating his political opponent, Joe Biden. While popular narratives concerning impeachment assert that the party initiating the inquiry often suffers in subsequent elections, a historical review of past impeachment inquiries suggests an alternative conclusion.
Never before in American history has the name of a sitting U.S. President facing an impeachment inquiry appeared on the ballot as it will in November of 2020.
Impeachment has already influenced the rhetoric and strategies of presidential primary candidates as well as analyst’s predictions about who will win the nomination. In the days following Speaker Pelosi’s announcement that the House would open an impeachment inquiry, all nineteen Democratic primary candidates released statements supporting impeachment. Frontrunner Elizabeth Warren called for Trump’s impeachment after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and reiterated her beliefs after Speaker Pelosi’s announcement. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders released a statement labeling Trump’s “self-dealing and corruption” as “limitless.” Biden, a central figure in the impeachment inquiry into Trump, stated that his campaign would be focused “not on how Donald Trump abused his power to come after my family, but on how he has turned his back on America’s families.”
Candidates also attempted to capitalize on the situation. Within three hours of Pelosi’s announcement, the Trump campaign had raised $1 million through a series of texts, tweets, and emails asking supporters to financially protect his campaign for the presidency. Most Democratic primary candidates made less explicit requests for money, emailing supporters to sign impeachment petitions, with links to a donation page on the side. However, some were more explicit. In an email, Biden’s campaign stated, “Donald Trump asked a foreign leader eight times to investigate my family. But I’m only going to ask you once: Please, I need you with me at this critical moment. Chip in to my campaign tonight.” The Democratic National Committee (DNC) also used impeachment for a fundraising push with a text that read, “URGENT: Stand with Speaker Pelosi as the House moves forward with an official impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.” The flurry of donations that followed marked Tuesday as the highest fund-raising day of the month.
In addition to its effect on campaign rhetoric and funding, impeachment has also shifted media attention away from the Democratic primary. For the next few months, impeachment will be the dominant topic covered by popular news channels. While top-polling candidates will continue to receive a decent amount of media coverage, analysts expect that pieces on lower-ranking candidates will be replaced with segments on impeachment. Several of the primary candidates are still waiting for their “breakout moment,” a moment much less likely to occur as they receive diminished media coverage. Some candidates have attempted to tie themselves to media coverage of impeachment in an attempt to gain more screen time. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris appeared on MSNBC in the same program to discuss impeachment, demonstrating both candidates’ desperation to get media coverage as each would normally have the stature to headline their own segments.
However, garnering media coverage in connection with impeachment may do little to aid these primary campaigns. As all democratic candidates have endorsed impeachment, merely restating Trump’s offenses will do little to distinguish any individual from the field. However, a history of presidential candidates who have managed to benefit from past impeachment inquiries may provide insight into the effect of impeachment on subsequent elections.
Candidates must give the public a reason to vote for them, not just a reason to not vote for President Trump.
It is a commonly shared belief among analysts that Pelosi refrained from opening an impeachment inquiry into President Trump after the Mueller Report was released, in part due to a fear of facing the supposed repercussions that the Republicans faced after their attempt to impeach President Clinton. However, historical facts do not support the myth that impeachment consistently harms the party that opened the inquiry.
After Republicans failed to convict Andrew Johnson after the Civil War, the GOP not only maintained control of the House in the following elections but also won the White House in the 1868 elections with Ulysses Grant as the face of the party. In more recent history, the Democrats won back the White House two years after President Nixon’s resignation. Some would argue that Democrats were able to do this only because Nixon’s impeachment ultimately held bipartisan support. However, the impeachment of President Clinton had a similar outcome despite the fact that Clinton’s impeachment was largely viewed by the American public as a partisan attempt to take down a president. While it is widely believed that the Republicans’ attempt to impeach President Clinton when the majority of the American public did not support the move cost the party, this assertion is based on too narrow a focus. Those who argue for this position reference the fact that House Republicans opened an impeachment inquiry in October of 1998, just a few weeks before midterm elections, in which Democrats gained five seats. However, two years after Clinton’s impeachment, the Republican party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. Although Republicans lost the midterms a few weeks after Clinton’s impeachment began, in each of these cases, the party that initiated impeachment to oppose the president ultimately benefited in the subsequent presidential election.
Impeachment harmed the party of the president facing impeachment in both the 1976 and 2000 presidential elections. In both cases, the opposing party’s candidate organized their campaigns around the theme of restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office. Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush’s campaigns managed to tap into public distrust of the presidency and present themselves as pillars of honesty. Throughout his presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter consistently stated, “I will never lie to the American people” and closed hundreds of speeches by saying, “All we need is a government that’s as good and decent and honest and truthful and open and compassionate and as filled with love as are the American people.” Through rhetoric such as this, Carter created the sense that he would restore integrity to the American political system.
George W. Bush utilized a similar strategy as he ran on the campaign promise to “restore honor and dignity” to the presidency. In an interview with The Atlantic, a strategist for Bush’s 2000 campaign argued that Democrats have “learned the wrong lessons” from Clinton’s impeachment, specifically in terms of how it shaped the subsequent presidential race. A strategist for Democratic nominee Al Gore who ran against Bush in 2000, agreed that Bush’s claim to moral decency in opposition to the past Democratic president’s actions “more than anything else got in the way in terms of winning the election.”
A winning-candidate will likely employ the strategies of their historical predecessors and make a strong claim to moral high ground and American unity.
Current primary candidates should learn from Carter and Bush’s strategy, and some are already employing these lessons. The candidate with the greatest chance of beating President Trump in the general election must focus their campaigns on two central themes. First, a winning-candidate will likely employ the strategies of their predecessors and make a strong claim to moral high ground and American unity. Secondly, candidates must give the public a reason to vote for them, not just a reason to not vote for President Trump.
So far, Kamala Harris has shown signs that she understands the first idea. In an email following Pelosi’s impeachment announcement, Harris asked her supporters to “rush a contribution to Kamala’s presidential campaign to elect a president who will fight for truth, justice and the rule of law — and defeat the lawless one we have now.” This statement reflects Harris’ ability to draw upon her background as District Attorney of San Francisco to present herself as the antithesis of President Trump.
Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren both seem to embody the second idea. During the most recent Democratic debate, Buttigieg stated that he wants to be President for the day after Trump. Buttigieg articulated that the most important question in this election is, “Who among the candidates for President can lead us in a world where we’re going to have to solve these big policy problems that didn’t take a break during impeachment?” This language demonstrates the Buttigieg’s understanding of the fact that he will have to do more than attack Trump to win the presidency; he will have to unify the American people.
Elizabeth Warren has also managed to balance impeachment with policy. When discussing impeachment at a rally in Keene, New Hampshire, Warren quickly stated her opinion and then pivoted back to her policy proposals. Warren’s refusal to focus on impeachment in order to garner attention for her ideas may provide voters with reason beyond opposition to President Trump.
While some candidates may successfully navigate the discourse surrounding impeachment through claims to morality, the circumstances surrounding impeachment may damage the candidacy of another frontrunner, Joe Biden. Despite the fact that President Trump’s claims about Biden and his son Hunter’s corruption are unsubstantiated, discussion about this incident will still dominate many news cycles in the months to come. Rumors of corruption will make it hard for Biden to credibly make the claim of restoring honor and honesty to the Presidency. Furthermore, impeachment tends to evoke a sense of distrust in Washington among voters. Therefore, Biden’s long history with Washington will make it difficult for him to separate himself from the establishment in the minds of voters.