Democrats are in full impeachment mode. Since they couldn’t defeat Donald Trump at the polls in 2016, the effort to remove him has come full circle to the only Constitutional method to remove him from office before the next election. To do so, they have tapped an ethically challenged Congressman from California, Adam Schiff, to lead the charge.
After the first day of public hearings in Congress, the first two witnesses have only their own impressions of what the President did wrong, hearing of a phone call between Trump and the President of Ukraine from a third or fourth person. This hearsay evidence would never be allowed in a U. S. court of law, but since impeachment is political rather than legal in nature, that is what we are given.
Since this phone call is at the center of the hearings, a little background is needed for those who have forgotten their basic government classes in junior high and high school. One of the most “important” people with information about the supposed crime Trump committed is Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, who complained that the President was subverting American foreign policy with his request to the Ukrainian leader.
Basic American political science tells us that there are three branches of the United States government. (This seems simple, but many are under the impression that our President is somehow constricted in how he conducts foreign affairs.) Making laws is the purview of the Legislative Branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They propose, debate and vote on bills that are needed to keep the Republic alive. The second Branch is the Executive Branch, made up of the President, who appoints people to aid him in his work to execute the laws. Of course, the Supreme Court becomes the third Branch; their job is to make sure that actions of the Congress and President comport with the dictates of the Constitution.
Those who believe that Trump somehow violated the “rules” of foreign policy need to go back to the Constitution and read Article II, which sets down the parameters for the Executive Branch of government. This Article is the only place where foreign policy is discussed, through the actions of the President. He is the one to set our policies toward foreign nations and foreign leaders. For Lt. Colonel Vindman to claim that Trump violated norms is ridiculous on its face. How can a President violate foreign policy? He makes that policy; if there is a change, it is in his power and it is his right to do so.
Essentially, a President can make and change foreign policy when he decides to do so, in the interests of the American nation. Those such as Vindman, who was vocally supportive of the previous administration’s dealings with Ukraine, need to realize that they are violating their oath of service to do the bidding of the President. Especially in the case of the military this is important, for the Commander-in-Chief is the President.
A cursory look at recent history (that which I can remember) gives a clear picture of Presidents having policies which differ from their predecessors and from their successors. I have vague memories of the Eisenhower administration, but I know he was leading us in the beginnings of the Cold War, and presided over two terms of peace and prosperity. In his foreign dealings, we got out of the Korean conflict, supported the South Vietnamese with aid, and faced off with the Kremlin with resolution. In addition, NATO was a part of how we dealt with Western Europe and the communists.
John Kennedy claimed that he was part of a new generation of leaders, but his tenure in office was cut short by assassination. But even then, his foreign policy was marked by confrontation with the Soviets, in Berlin and Cuba.
After his death, Lyndon Johnson’s foreign policy got us gradually into a disastrous ground war in Vietnam, with more than 58,000 Americans dying in that conflict. In 1968, Richard Nixon won the Oval Office with a promise to get us out of Vietnam, which he did. He also broke precedent in visiting China and opening trade with that country.
Gerald Ford was the unfortunate recipient of the Presidency when Nixon was forced to resign in 1974, and he had little time to establish any kind of viable foreign policy. He lost to the Georgia peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, and we saw another slant on how foreign leaders and nations were treated by an American President. Carter’s years oversaw the Iranian hostage crisis, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and the boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. He claimed that America suffered from a “malaise” of spirit during his time in office, and this was reflected in his foreign policy.
When the former actor and California governor, Ronald Reagan, won the Presidential race in 1980, foreign policy took another track. He advocated peace through strength, and faced off with the Soviet leaders frequently. His most famous speech was about our foreign policy, when, standing before the Berlin Wall, he challenged the Soviet leader to “tear down this wall!” American prestige in the world was never higher than in Reagan’s years.
His Vice President, George H. W. Bush, continue such policy, and he sent American troops to the Middle East to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. But an unfortunate campaign slogan (“read my lips; no new taxes”) in 1988, a third party candidate and a perceived recession led to his defeat in 1992. Bill Clinton, a flawed candidate won and pursued his own foreign policy. This included sending Americans to fight in the Balkans in Southeastern Europe and bombing suspected terrorist sites in Africa.
A disputed election in 2000 elevated George W. Bush to the White House, and events seemed to dictate his foreign policy. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 saw the President sending our forces into Afghanistan to take out the terrorists, and in the next year we attacked Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. His policy of “nation building” has meant that since 2001, we have been fighting in Afghanistan for over 18 years.
Barack Obama became President in 2009, and he immediately claimed to want to get out of Iraq, but the Afghan war was an essential one. In his eight years, he embarked on an apology tour throughout the world, intervened in Libya and Syria, set “red lines” never enforced and generally lowered our prestige in the world.
Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to “bring our troops home”, and has had a more confrontational attitude toward foreign players. He has engaged North Korea, negotiated better trade deals with the EU and has generally backed off from the globalist stance of his immediate predecessors. How this will play out in the long term is anyone’s guess, but he is going his own way in foreign relations.
History shows us that Presidents follow different routes in their foreign affairs. Presidents have virtually carte blanche in what they do. If he wants to confront or apologize, that is his right. Congress can fume and fuss, but dealing with other nations is what the founders of the Republic decreed for the Chief Executive. There is only one effective way that Congress can thwart the course of our foreign policy — defund the President’s initiatives in our foreign dealings, but Congresses have historically been too fractured to take such a step. Those who fulminate about how Trump treats the leaders of other nations, and claim he has done something “impeachable” should look at the Constitution (Article II, remember?) and study some history. Back off. He is our Chief Executive, and can do pretty much what he desires when dealing with other nations in