Oath Expediency and Constitutional Abdication

0:00

/634.44

1×

Beyond CYA Politics: How Congressional Self-Interest Threatens Constitutional Democracy

In the hallowed halls of Congress, where principles and power often engage in a complex dance, a recent episode has laid bare a fundamental tension at the heart of American democracy. When Rep. Shri Thanedar introduced Articles of Impeachment against President Trump on May 13, forcing the House to address them within two legislative days, he unwittingly exposed a troubling calculus that many elected officials make: weighing constitutional duty against electoral survival.

The Backlash: Self-Preservation Takes Center Stage

The response from fellow Democrats was swift and unsparing. In a closed-door caucus, colleagues described Thanedar's move as "the dumbest f---ing thing," "idiotic," and "utterly selfish." These reactions weren't rooted in constitutional analysis or a careful evaluation of the merits of impeachment. Instead, they centered on a much more pragmatic concern: political self-preservation.

Leadership figures, including Rep. Jerry Nadler, Minority Whip Katherine Clark, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, encouraged voting with Republicans to table the measure. Their reasoning wasn't that the impeachment articles lacked merit—it was that pursuing them would "endanger swing-district members" and "distract from messaging on GOP tax cuts."

This reaction brings into sharp focus a question that strikes at the foundation of representative democracy: When does political expediency become constitutional abdication?

The Oath: A Promise Without Reservations

Every member of Congress swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution... without mental reservation." This is not a conditional pledge. It contains no asterisks for electoral convenience, no exemptions for political strategy. It is an absolute commitment to place constitutional fidelity above all other considerations.

When this sacred promise becomes filtered through electoral calculus—when representatives measure their constitutional duties against polling data and campaign strategies—something profound is lost. The oath mutates from a pledge to protect the Constitution into a pledge to protect one's seat.

This transformation represents nothing less than a betrayal of the foundational contract with the American people. The oath is not merely ceremonial—it is the bedrock upon which legitimate governance stands. When members prioritize "covering their own assets" over fulfilling this solemn promise, they don't merely make a tactical decision; they undermine the very basis of their authority to govern. Political self-preservation ("CYA politics") might seem pragmatic in the moment, but it corrodes the constitutional system far more effectively than any external threat ever could.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men..." —John Adams, 1780

Adams' words resonate with particular force in this context. By his "Moral Algorithm," a vote chosen primarily to safeguard incumbents at the expense of constitutional accountability inverts the proper hierarchy of values in a republic. Self-preservation becomes the paramount concern, pushing the common good into the background.

The Constitutional Design: Impeachment as a Check, Not a Choice

The Constitution places no exemption for political inconvenience on the impeachment power outlined in Article I, § 2 and § 3. The framers understood that holding the executive accountable would never be politically comfortable. They designed impeachment precisely for moments when ordinary politics fails to constrain potential abuses of power.

Abandoning this responsibility because it "won't pass the Senate" or might "help Trump fund-raise" is equivalent to a sheriff ignoring a felony because the grand jury might decline to indict. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of institutional duty.

Thanedar's articles enumerated serious allegations: usurpation of congressional appropriations powers, obstruction of justice, bribery, and creation of unlawful offices. These strike at core constitutional principles—the separation of powers, rule of law, and the integrity of government. Even members who judge some counts as weak have a duty to investigate them in committee—not to preemptively dismiss them because they complicate campaign messaging.

The Dangerous Precedent: Normalizing Abdication

When a House majority normalizes abdication of its oversight responsibilities, it doesn't merely affect a single presidential term. It teaches future presidents—of either party—that brazen conduct is buffered by legislators' career anxiety. This precedent erodes every subsequent impeachment debate, incrementally shifting the republic toward what Adams would have recognized as the early stages of tyranny.

The damage extends beyond the formal mechanisms of accountability. It sends a clear message to the public: that those entrusted with upholding the Constitution will place their own careers above that solemn duty when the two come into conflict. This feeds the cynicism that already corrodes public faith in democratic institutions.

External Pressure: Truth-Telling and Institutional Resistance

The dynamics of this debate have been further complicated by a significant external development. Democratic National Committee Vice-Chair David Hogg has pledged $20 million through an organization called Leaders We Deserve to primary Democrats who "fail to meet the moment." His criteria explicitly include those unwilling to confront presidential abuses.

Party leaders have already attempted to strip Hogg of his vice-chair role, but the threat remains potent: voters dissatisfied with defensive politics now have organized resources to replace retreat with action. This creates a countervailing pressure against the instinct for self-preservation, introducing new calculations for representatives in safe or progressive districts.

What's particularly revealing about this situation is not just Hogg's challenge but the establishment's response to it. When Hogg spoke uncomfortable truths about accountability, the immediate reaction was not engagement with his substantive concerns but an attempt to invalidate his position entirely. This pattern—silencing messengers rather than addressing messages—exemplifies precisely how institutions resist accountability.

The attempt to remove Hogg for simply articulating a legitimate constitutional position demonstrates how deeply entrenched the self-preservation mindset has become. Truth-telling is not grounds for dismissal in a healthy democracy; it is essential to its functioning. When leadership feels discomfort at being reminded of constitutional duties, the problem lies not with the reminder but with those who find it inconvenient.

This development suggests that even the political calculus that drove the initial backlash may be more complex than it first appeared. The assumption that confronting presidential misconduct is necessarily a political liability ignores the possibility that voters might reward constitutional courage rather than strategic retreat. Hogg's initiative recognizes what many legislators seem to have forgotten: that voters often respect principle even when they disagree with specific positions.

A Path Forward: Reconciling Duty and Politics

Is there a way to reconcile constitutional duty with political reality? Several approaches might help bridge this divide:

1. Process Before Politics: Hold hearings first, worry about the final vote later. Determining facts in public satisfies the oath and equips voters with evidence, whether or not the Senate ultimately convicts. This approach honors constitutional responsibility while allowing for political flexibility based on what emerges.
2. The Adams Test: Representatives could adopt a formal process for major votes, explicitly weighing the common good against private interests. Published worksheets would allow constituents—and potential primary challengers—to audit this reasoning, creating transparency and accountability.
3. Institutional Division of Labor: Separate electoral strategy from constitutional duty. Campaign committees can defend vulnerable members, but the House floor must remain a venue for principle, not poll-tested positioning. This creates space for members to fulfill their oaths while still receiving political support.
4. Collaborative Improvement: Invite critics to propose amendments rather than tabling motions. If an impeachment article is poorly drafted, improve it—don't bury it. This approach acknowledges legitimate concerns about process without abandoning the underlying constitutional duty.
5. Democratic Engagement: If leadership believes impeachment is strategically unwise, make that case publicly instead of relying on closed-door invective. Transparency defuses the charge of self-interest and engages citizens in the constitutional process.

The Deeper Question: What Makes a Republic Work?

Beneath these tactical considerations lies a more profound question about the nature of representative democracy itself. The American system was designed with the understanding that elected officials would sometimes need to place principle above popularity—that they would possess the wisdom and courage to make difficult choices even when those choices carried personal political risk.

This vision of representation stands in tension with a more mechanistic view that sees elected officials as mere conduits for majority opinion, with no independent judgment or constitutional conscience. The impeachment debate reveals how far we have drifted toward this latter conception, with representatives openly citing electoral calculations as reasons to avoid constitutional duties.

As Adams warned, a Congress primarily guarding its own tenure will discover its legitimacy—and ultimately its power—shrinking in equal measure. The constitutional system depends on each branch jealously guarding its prerogatives and fulfilling its assigned role, even when doing so carries political costs.

Conclusion: The Primacy of Oath Over Expediency

The response to Thanedar's impeachment articles represents more than a tactical disagreement among Democrats. It reveals a republic at a crossroads, grappling with fundamental questions about representation, constitutional duty, and the proper functioning of our system of checks and balances.

The oath of office must stand supreme above all political calculations. When members prioritize electoral security over constitutional responsibility, they may preserve their seats in the short term, but they simultaneously hollow out the meaning of those very seats. The oath is not merely one consideration among many—it is the foundation upon which all other considerations must rest.

What makes our constitutional system work is not clever political maneuvering or strategic positioning, but elected officials with the moral courage to uphold their sworn duties even when politically inconvenient. The founders understood that democracy requires virtue—specifically, the virtue of placing principle above self-interest when the two conflict.

Figures like David Hogg who remind us of these uncomfortable truths should not be silenced or marginalized simply because they make leadership uncomfortable. Their voice represents the very accountability mechanism that keeps democracy vital and prevents the slow slide into constitutional indifference. When "speaking truth to power" is met with institutional attempts to invalidate the speaker, it reveals far more about the institution's priorities than about the speaker's legitimacy.

As citizens, we face a parallel choice: Do we reward political courage, even when we disagree with specific decisions? Or do we punish representatives who place principle above party or polls, inadvertently incentivizing precisely the self-protective behavior that undermines constitutional governance?

The answers to these questions will determine not just the fate of specific impeachment articles, but the future of constitutional democracy itself. For as Adams understood nearly two and a half centuries ago, a government that places private interest above the common good cannot long sustain the difficult work of self-governance that is democracy's essential promise.

The path forward is clear, if challenging: restore the primacy of oath over expediency, of constitutional duty over career preservation, of democratic principle over partisan advantage. Nothing less will secure the "more perfect union" that remains our national aspiration and our shared responsibility.