So I've been reporting a story about how you'd fix the impeachment process. It doesn't work for removal, as currently designed. Impeachment was built for a political system without parties. It fails in a system with polarized parties.

The one time it functioned as intended, confusingly, was the time it didn't happen: Richard Nixon wasn't impeached! But the impeachment process, which came at the low ebb of party polarization in American history, convinced his party to force him to resign.
Would Republicans force Nixon to resign today?

Oh, you're cute. Thank you. I needed that.
The problem of impeachment is pretty simple: Presidents are leaders of parties. Parties are tied to the political fortunes of presidents. You're asking a party to basically wreck its immediate political future for the good of the system.
This doesn't just have the effect of making impeachment ineffective as a remedy. It's worse than that. It makes impeachment dangerous to the president's party, and gives them a reason to defend him and either normalize or minimize his crimes. As we are seeing right now.
One thing @GeneHealy reminded me of is that conviction was almost a majority vote in the Senate. It got switched to 2/3rds at the last minute, and it's not clear why. But if it was a majority vote, it'd be a lot easier to convict. So maybe that would help.
But there's never been an impeachment process when the president's party controlled congress. A method of executive accountability that cannot function when the president's party is in charge is not a reliable method of accountability.
You can imagine taking it out of Congress's hands and giving it to, say, the Supreme Court. But would they take that responsibility on? Under what circumstances?

I spent a long time talking to @LilyMasonPhD about this and basically talked myself out of the idea this is fixable.
In a party-based political system, there may just not be a good answer for the problem of a bad leader who is popular within his own party.
One thing this did convince me of is that Democrats are using the impeachment process right now for what it's actually for, rather than what it pretends to be for.

Impeachment is not, historically, a way we convict and remove wayward presidents, and it never reliably will be.
Impeachment is a way of sanctioning a president. Of shining light on things they did. Of putting an asterisk — or, in Trump's case, a double-asterisk — next to their name in the history books. Of warning their successors not to repeat their crimes.
This is not very satisfying. It seems we should have checks beyond just elections on presidential behavior. But we don't. What we have is this process that is, in effect, a super-censure, and its main operation is to recast how a president is remembered.
Which makes this impeachment process true to impeachment's actual role in our system. What Trump did, in the waning days of his presidency, should bring shame on his presidency forever. Impeachment doesn't work for removal, but it can work for shame. And so here we are.

More from Ezra Klein

This is a good @mattyglesias post about techno-politics but I want to quibble with the part of it that’s about my essay on the policy feedback loops you can build by Just Helping People Fast. Matt writes: https://t.co/MuBlgQV6LW


Over at Mischiefs of Faction, @Smotus makes a similar point:
https://t.co/al6fS5tZXP


I want to be clear here: I’m saying that the Affordable Care act was, from a political perspective, badly designed, and that *a different health care plan* might’ve led to a better Dem performance in 2010. But these arguments don't grapple with that.

To @Smotus’s point, Pelosi released those House Democrats at the end, not the beginning. Having covered the beginning of this, I can tell you a lot of those Democrats thought a bipartisan health care bill would be great politics for them!

But they didn’t get that.

This is key. The ACA was built on the political theory that:

1. Bipartisan policy is easier to pass — and more popular once passed.

2. Working off of the Heritage Foundation/Romney template could get you a bipartisan health bill.

1 was probably right. 2 was utterly wrong.
So I'd recommend reading this thread from Dave, but I thought about some of these policies, and how they fit into the whole, a lot, and want to offer a different interpretation.


I think California is world leading on progressivism that doesn't ask anyone to give anything up, or accept any major change, right now.

That's what I mean by symbolically progressive, operationally conservative.

Take the 100% renewable energy standard. As @leahstokes has written, these policies often fail in practice. I note our leadership on renewable energy in the piece, but the kind of politics we see on housing and transportation are going foil that if they don't change.

Creating a statewide consumer financial protection agency is great! But again, you're not asking most voters to give anything up or accept any actual changes.

I don't see that as balancing the scales on, say, high-speed rail.

CA is willing to vote for higher taxes, new agencies, etc. It was impressive when LA passed Measure H, a new sales tax to fund homeless shelters. And depressing to watch those same communities pour into the streets to protest shelters being placed near them. That's the rub.
What we're seeing from Trump and his allies today is an autocratic attempt. It's not a competent one, and it probably won't be an effective one. But that's what it is. And far worse would follow if it succeeded.


As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means."

The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.

"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."

"Then autocratic consolidation, where it’s just consolidating ever more power and money, making it ever less possible to change."

There is an element of farce to Trump's tweets, his actions, his cronies. It makes it easy for many to discount what he's actually saying, and trying. https://t.co/GwC3KGbpkC

It's fitting for the internet era, when the worst ideas and figures come layered in irony.

More from Politics

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

You May Also Like

Nano Course On Python For Trading
==========================
Module 1

Python makes it very easy to analyze and visualize time series data when you’re a beginner. It's easier when you don't have to install python on your PC (that's why it's a nano course, you'll learn python...

... on the go). You will not be required to install python in your PC but you will be using an amazing python editor, Google Colab Visit
https://t.co/EZt0agsdlV

This course is for anyone out there who is confused, frustrated, and just wants this python/finance thing to work!

In Module 1 of this Nano course, we will learn about :

# Using Google Colab
# Importing libraries
# Making a Random Time Series of Black Field Research Stock (fictional)

# Using Google Colab

Intro link is here on YT: https://t.co/MqMSDBaQri

Create a new Notebook at https://t.co/EZt0agsdlV and name it AnythingOfYourChoice.ipynb

You got your notebook ready and now the game is on!
You can add code in these cells and add as many cells as you want

# Importing Libraries

Imports are pretty standard, with a few exceptions.
For the most part, you can import your libraries by running the import.
Type this in the first cell you see. You need not worry about what each of these does, we will understand it later.
**Thread on Bravery of Sikhs**
(I am forced to do this due to continuous hounding of Sikh Extremists since yesterday)

Rani Jindan Kaur, wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had illegitimate relations with Lal Singh (PM of Ranjit Singh). Along with Lal Singh, she attacked Jammu, burnt - https://t.co/EfjAq59AyI


Hindu villages of Jasrota, caused rebellion in Jammu, attacked Kishtwar.

Ancestors of Raja Ranjit Singh, The Sansi Tribe used to give daughters as concubines to Jahangir.


The Ludhiana Political Agency (Later NW Fronties Prov) was formed by less than 4000 British soldiers who advanced from Delhi and reached Ludhiana, receiving submissions of all sikh chiefs along the way. The submission of the troops of Raja of Lahore (Ranjit Singh) at Ambala.

Dabistan a contemporary book on Sikh History tells us that Guru Hargobind broke Naina devi Idol Same source describes Guru Hargobind serving a eunuch
YarKhan. (ref was proudly shared by a sikh on twitter)
Gobind Singh followed Bahadur Shah to Deccan to fight for him.


In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh states that the reason he was in conflict with the Hill Rajas was that while they were worshiping idols, while he was an idol-breaker.

And idiot Hindus place him along Maharana, Prithviraj and Shivaji as saviours of Dharma.