For most of my life, conservatives have advocated law and order and peace through strength. People who commit evil acts should be punished, we said, to deter that kind of behavior in the future. Allowing bad actors to go unpunished, the assumption went, creates a “moral hazard”—just as weakness invites additional provocation. So, why do today’s conservatives think a president who incited a mob to kill a cop and injured others should skate?
In a sane world, conservatives would be first in line to support holding Donald Trump—who obviously incited the insurrection (just ask the incitees)—accountable for his behavior. Unfortunately, we’ve seen quite the opposite, with a few notable exceptions. Why should today’s conservatives harken back to a saner time and hold Trump accountable for his actions (and lack thereof)?
For one thing, stakes are high. We have to take a stand to ensure that no future president attempts to replicate Trump’s playbook. You would think that patriotic conservatives (you know, the guys who can’t get enough of Lee Greenwood blessing the USA) would be 100 percent behind this.
American conservatism is, at least in part, about conserving liberal democracy; to do that, we must ensure that free and fair elections lead to the peaceful transfer of power. In 2020, we got the former, but not the latter. “The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are,” Ronald Reagan said during his first presidential inauguration. “In the eyes of many in the world, this every-four-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”
Indeed, the entire system our Founders gave us is, as conservative writer Jonah Goldberg says, a “miracle” that must be treasured and preserved. This is a conservative insight. Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world, and the natural state of man is not about freedom, capitalism, and democracy—but rather, nature is red in tooth and claw. “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction,” declared then-California Governor Reagan in his 1967 inaugural address. “It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”
But if Reagan and the Founding Fathers no longer matter to conservatives, consider Edmund Burke, generally regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. What would he think of the radical mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6? His opposition to mobs and the French Revolution speaks for itself. What would he think about the notion that you can’t impeach someone after they’ve left office? Burke’s service as the lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial in England of Warren Hastings, whose trial began after he resigned, may shed some light on his opinions.
How about the notion that a politician should be acquitted because his words and actions may not rise to the legal standard of incitement? As Burke told the court during Hastings’ impeachment trial, “the principles of honour, the spirit of cavaliers to govern here; not the low principles of jurisprudence only.” And what about the notion that political leaders should merely reflect the opinions of their constituents? “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion,” Burke told the electors of Bristol.
Of course, you might say. What would an 18th century British parliamentarian know about our Constitution? Apparently, more than the 45 Republican senators who agreed with the contention that it is unconstitutional to impeach a president who has already left office. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Chuck Cooper, one of the nation’s top conservative lawyers, explains why “The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial.”
But I don’t want to get bogged down in legal or process arguments. Nor should Democrats rely solely on such things. In addition to documenting the facts and marshalling evidence, Democrats are also building what The Washington Post calls “an elaborate, emotionally charged case against Trump.”
Yet, despite having both facts and emotion on their side, it’s highly unlikely Democrats will find 17 Republicans to convict Trump, which means that he will be acquitted.
What does it say about Republicans that, despite all of that, their response is essentially a foregone conclusion?
It says that we have jury nullification—that literally nothing could persuade Republicans to punish Trump. Thus, impeachment as a means of the legislative branch holding the executive branch accountable is likely over as a potential remedy in the future.
It also means that Republican politicians believe that supporting their president, even when he is obviously guilty, is the smart choice—that no amount of shame or bad press will outweigh the positive incentives. Most disturbing of all, acquittal means that ostensibly conservative politicians are willing to risk setting a precedent that could be exploited by a future demagogue to advance his or her own political agenda. This is putting party and personal ambition ahead of patriotism. Call me naive, but a few years ago I wouldn’t have believed it.
When Republicans chose Donald Trump to be their nominee, I knew something had gone horribly wrong—that this wasn’t the same conservatism I had grown up with. The most shameful and telling thing isn’t how conservatives greeted Trump’s arrival—it’s how they’re acting even after he’s gone.
