SmotusCast

Seth Masket

Understanding US politics, by author and political scientist Seth Masket smotus.substack.com

  1. Aug 10

    The impeachment next time

    The video above is the conversation I had with Marquette political scientist Julia Azari last week about her recent book Backlash Presidents: From Transformative to Reactionary Leaders in American History. It was a really enjoyable conversation about a great new book. But I want to focus on one of the aspects of impeachment we discussed. the @smotus report is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. There’s a pretty high probability Democrats will control the House of Representatives next year (with even to slightly-better-than-even odds of controlling the Senate). And there’s a pretty high probability that a Democratic House would take on a third impeachment of Donald Trump as one of its early priorities. What might such an impeachment effort look like? More specifically, what impeachment articles should Democrats draw up? Explainer: In an impeachment, it’s the U.S. House that draws up articles of impeachment, and if any of those articles reach a simple majority of the House, the president goes on trial in the Senate. It requires two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) to actually convict and remove the president from office. It’s hard to know what approach Democrats should use because impeachment has never “worked,” in the sense that it’s never actually removed a president from office. It’s reasonable to assume that the Senate would have voted to remove Richard Nixon if an impeachment trial had happened in 1974; Nixon certainly believed so, which is why he resigned. But that was also one of the weakest party eras in U.S. history; significant numbers of Republicans were willing to work with Democrats to remove him. At most other times in U.S. history, it’s almost impossible to gather support from the president’s party to reach the two-thirds threshold needed for removal in the Senate. Mitt Romney’s vote to convict Donald Trump in 2020 was the first time in U.S. history that any senator from the president’s party had voted for removal. In the conversation with Azari above, we discussed Republicans’ attempt to remove President Andrew Johnson from office in 1868. Since this was the first time an impeachment had been attempted (and since Johnson was in such an unusually bad political position, perceived as a sellout by his fellow Democrats for serving as the late Abraham Lincoln’s running mate in 1864 and as traitor by Republicans for his work to thwart Lincoln’s Reconstruction agenda), Republicans were just kind of making things up. They passed 11 articles of impeachment, all ostensibly related to Johnson’s violations of the Tenure of Office Act (by which he was constrained from firing Lincoln’s cabinet appointees). But those covered a long laundry list of Johnson’s actions, including his “improper rhetoric” in de-legitimizing the Congress. The trial went to the Senate; Johnson was acquitted by a single vote. Democrats in 2020 and 2021 went with a different approach. Upon becoming Speaker in 2019, Nancy Pelosi signaled her discomfort with moving forward with a vague impeachment on a range of issues, even though that was the clear preference of many new members of her caucus elected in 2018. Yet that changed with the release of a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which Trump was heard asking Zelenskyy to say that his government was investigating Joe Biden for corruption, and saying that ongoing U.S. aid to Ukraine was contingent on this. The Democratic leadership found this blackmailing of an ally to interfere with the next election to be an overt and easily-understood transgression that could keep their coalition together and win public support. There were just two articles of impeachment: one on abuse of power, and one on obstruction of Congress. They both passed the House on party-line votes. The Senate acquittal was also party-line, save Romney’s yes vote on just the first article. The 2021 impeachment was even simpler, coming just a week after the January 6th riot and containing just one article: that Trump had incited insurrection. This passed quickly, with all Democrats and 10 Republicans voting to send it to the Senate. In the Senate, 7 members of the president’s party voted to convict, along with all 50 Democrats and independents. This still fell 10 votes short of conviction, and Trump was acquitted. Should there be an impeachment in 2026, there’s an argument for keeping it focused on just one or two key issues that are very obvious and on which public opinion is strongly against Trump: his overt corruption in demanding payments from businesses and foreign powers or investments in his digital currency, or his violations of the separation of powers in launching a war on Iran without any prior or ongoing approval from Congress. Yet there’s certainly an argument for throwing in a bunch of other issues — his abuse of the pardon power (especially in freeing those who attempted an insurrection), his overtly racist rhetoric, his threats to undermine the constitutional system by running for a third term, his sending federal relief efforts just to states that voted for him, his deployment of ICE and U.S. Armed Forces into American cities, his violations of people’s habeas corpus rights in immigration enforcement, his efforts to undermine U.S. alliances and treaties, his unauthorized demolition and defacement of several federal structures in DC, etc., and just see what sticks. There’s a lot. Democrats certainly have some concerns about appearing as a party obsessed with impeaching Trump. And the kitchen sink approach might make them more vulnerable to such a news frame. But the party also contains a lot of passionate voters and activists who see impeaching Trump as the only remedy available for his range of abuses. Again, though, it’s hard to say which approach would be better, since none is likely to come close to actually removing Trump from power. And which would be better in terms of Democrats’ public perceptions heading into the 2028 election cycle? One could argue that Pelosi’s limited-impeachment approach to 2020 was about as successful a model as possible; it didn’t remove Trump, but it likely hurt him, and he lost reelection that year. This might well be the approach they pursue next year. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit smotus.substack.com/subscribe

  2. Aug 7

    Star Wars politics and un-parody-able Trump moments, with Alexandra Petri

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit smotus.substack.com I was truly delighted and honored to be joined by Atlantic humor columnist Alexandra Petri (here’s her website) for a rich discussion about two vital topics: 1) Moments when the Trump administration has gone beyond parody, and 2) The best and worst political lessons we can glean from the “Star Wars” universe. Does this sound nerdy? Just you wait! Among the things we cover: * The absolute comedic perfection of moments like Four Seasons Landscaping and the Hurricane Dorian Sharpie, and how Trump left his satirists with no place to go. * How important events that occurred not that long ago can quickly be memory-holed, to the point that young people today have never heard of the Jedi or George W. Bush. * The invaluable cautionary tale of Lando Calrissian, dealmaker. * The fact that there seems to be almost no news media in the Star Wars universe and no one who reads anyway. * The dangers of putting odd people obsessed with odd ideas (tariffs, a moon-sized space battlestation) into positions of power. * How DEI hiring practices could have improved Stormtroopers’ aim. * Perhaps most importantly, which films to introduce to children and in which order. The recording has roughly 7 minutes of public material, but then the rest is paywalled. I hope you’ll agree that it’s really, really worth getting a paid subscription to the Smotus Report to hear the rest.

    Star Wars politics and un-parody-able Trump moments, with Alexandra Petri
  3. Jul 10

    Abortion access four years after Dobbs

    I hope you’ll check out this conversation I had with Karen Middleton about the state of abortion access and reproductive freedom in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs decision. Middleton is the president of Cobalt, a Colorado organization that seeks to protect and advance abortion rights. She’s also a former Colorado state legislator. One of the more fascinating things to me was that the annual number of abortions in the U.S. has likely increased post-Dobbs. Part of that, Middleton says, is due to increased awareness of options across state lines, and certainly part of it is due to organizations like Cobalt that seek to put pregnant women in touch with providers. Through this kind of work, Colorado has become a place where women from other nearby states — especially Texas — can find options. Indeed, as Middleton says, “We are now a mini travel agency.” Middleton also pushes back somewhat at Democratic politicians who seek to “restore” or “codify” Roe v. Wade. As she argues, Roe was a roughly compromise position to begin with, and those advocating for abortion rights should do so unapologetically and forcefully. The goal, she says, is national legislation that firmly establishes and protects abortion access. I hope you’ll get as much out of this conversation as I did. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit smotus.substack.com/subscribe

    Abortion access four years after Dobbs
  4. Jul 2

    Lessons from the Colorado primary

    This was a treat. I teamed up yesterday with ian silverii and Jason Bane at the Get More Smarter podcast (the top Democratic-leaning politics podcast in Colorado?) to discuss Tuesday’s primaries. You can watch/listen here, or tune into their podcast, but I want to describe a bit of what we learned here and offer some takeaways on what was a primary election with national consequences. [Ed. note: I usually do a paywalled post on Thursdays, but I’m making this one free.] One thing you’ll notice in this discussion is that I’m very much the political scientist and they’re very much the political consultants. That is, we mainly see eye-to-eye, but with different perspectives. I tend to attribute the primary results to some nationwide (even international) left-populist movement that’s spurring anger at Democratic incumbents; they tend to focus on the quality of the candidates and the campaigns. Honestly I think we’re both right! We’re just looking at different parts of the election. the @smotus report is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Just to run through some of the primary elections and our quick takeaways: Democratic Governor’s Primary: We all expected Sen. Michael Bennet to lose to Attorney General Phil Weiser by this point, but we didn’t expect it to be by 13 points (as of the latest numbers). To his credit, Weiser ran a very effective campaign, and while he and Bennet didn’t disagree on much, Bennet was seen as the more “institutional” or “establishment” candidate, and this was a bad year to be that. As Ian and Jason argue, Weiser had a compelling and catchy slogan (“Weiser for Governor, Bennet for Senate”), while Bennet struggled to develop any sort of compelling rationale for why he wanted to leave the Senate and become governor. They also suggested that Bennet left some real assets on the table — he could have given a great fiery anti-Trump speech on the floor of the US Senate (he’s good at that!) and used that in his messaging, but it never happened. Republican Governor’s Primary: As of today, “high risk humanitarian” Victor Marx is slightly leading State Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer for the nomination, with far-right state Rep. Scott Bottoms far behind. That is, the least conventional candidate is slightly edging out the most conventional one. This was a hard one to predict, but I think we all expected Marx to do well in this Republican Party. (We disagreed on whether the national media’s mockery of Marx helped or hurt him in this race.) But if he’s actually becoming the nominee, this could be a wild general election. It could split the party. It could lead to an absolutely wild set of debates… or no debates at all .The First Congressional District: This was the earthquake of Tuesday night, with 30-year incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette losing to 29-year old attorney Melat Kiros by 13 points. Kiros actually pulled 53% of the vote in a 3-way race. (I figured DeGette might hold onto her seat thanks to the split anti-establishment vote.) As Ian and Jason argue, DeGette was low-hanging fruit for a progressive challenge. She was pretty broadly respected as a very reliable Democratic vote in Congress — and a true fighter for reproductive freedom for many years — but she didn’t have a ton of strong allies, nor many constituents who loved her. And for what it’s worth, it’s hard to name a federal project in Denver with her name on it. She was also challenged by Kiros, who turned out to be a very strong campaigner. She’s clearly inexperienced, but also very intelligent and engaging, put a ton of shoe leather into this contest, and was backed by a strong Democratic Socialist team. The Eighth Congressional District: We pretty broadly expected Manny Rutinel to defeat the more moderate Shannon Bird, although not by 30 points. He took a vote she took in the statehouse about ICE and made it an albatross around her neck. As Ian notes, the eight district was drawn not just to be competitive, but also heavily Latino, and Rutinel was successful at connecting with that constituency. We get into an embarrassing conversation about how handsome Rutinel is and whether that mattered. The U.S. Senate primary: I express admiration of / frustration with John Hickenlooper, who has a remarkable win streak in Colorado politics, dating back to his two terms as Denver’s mayor and his two terms as governor, which he won in 2010 and 2014 — very hard years for Democrats. He is very difficult to beat (if you ignore his 2020 presidential run). So perhaps it’s no shock he beat back this left challenge from state Sen. Julie Gonzales. But as Ian and Jason note, Gonzales did not mount a terribly strong campaign. She was never able to raise that much money, she didn’t have much of a message or narrative for just why Coloradan’s should fire Hickenlooper or why they should hire her, and she seemed to do a lot of her campaigning solely in Denver. We also get into the Attorney General race (Secretary of State Jena Griswold defeated the other three candidates handily, although by a plurality of the vote), and a shockingly expensive race in the 6th statehouse district, where a seemingly pretty progressive incumbent was taking down by a more progressive challenger. We also get into whether 2026 comprises a “Tea Party of the Left” year, and just how much candidate skill and campaign messaging matters. But it’s a really enjoyable run-down and I hope you’ll check it out. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit smotus.substack.com/subscribe

  5. May 29

    "Distrust in institutions is not necessarily unhealthy"

    Yesterday, I was delighted to speak with Colleen Shogan, the former Archivist of the United States and current head of the In Pursuit project at More Perfect. If you didn’t get to listen, I hope you’ll watch above. Among the topics we discussed: the @smotus report is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. * What is the cause of Americans’ declining trust in their governing institutions (which has been going on for decades), and to what extent is distrust healthy in and even vital to a democracy? * To what extent can basic competence by governing officials restore Americans’ faith in their government? * Does our polarized two-party system make America ungovernable? Are there reforms that could either change the party system or change governing systems to make things more manageable? * How does populism contribute to distrust, and how long has it been a presence in our political system? I think you’ll enjoy the conversation! And by all means check out the In Pursuit project, including its podcast. (I enjoyed this conversation with Jack Rakove about James Madison’s political strategizing.) As Colleen mentioned in our discussion, they’ve got an upcoming piece on Abraham Lincoln’s presidency written by Barack Obama. It’s not to miss! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit smotus.substack.com/subscribe

    "Distrust in institutions is not necessarily unhealthy"

About

Understanding US politics, by author and political scientist Seth Masket smotus.substack.com

You Might Also Like