Joseph Sabino Mistick: Look to Ukraine to survive two more years of Trump |
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Look to Ukraine to survive two more years of Trump

Joseph Sabino Mistick
Ukrainian comedian and presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelenskiy, center right, and his wife Olena Zelenska, center left, greet their supporters at his headquarters as the portrait of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is seen on a TV screen, right, after the second round of presidential elections in Kiev, Ukraine, April 21.

When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that Donald Trump is “just not worth” the trouble and division that would be caused by an attempt to impeach him, she was doing more than just throwing shade at Trump.

There are good governmental reasons to avoid the national ordeal of impeachment. Any White House administration that finds itself in bunker mode will struggle to give its full attention to the rest of the business of government. So it is wise to avoid the distractions of impeachment if possible.

It is not that anyone believes that Trump is a hands-on president whose traditional presidential agenda would be derailed by impeachment, but the turmoil trickles down, distracting everyone around the president. We saw that when Richard Nixon faced impeachment over the Watergate break-in in the 1970s. Toward the end, his aides had time for little else.

And any minute that Bill Clinton spent defending himself against impeachment in the 1990s surely would have been better spent on the terrorist threat and Osama bin Laden. While we will never know whether things would have turned out differently without those distractions, we do know that the Republican clamor for impeachment eclipsed everything else.

There are also good political reasons for Democrats to slow-walk impeachment talk. Already, Trump is signaling his punch for 2020, claiming that he is the victim of unfair treatment. “Victim” is a role that Trump relishes, and one that he will weave into political gold given the chance.

After Clinton’s impeachment, he got stronger and the Republicans got weaker. Republican members of Congress who led the charge either resigned or were beaten, and the Republican Party lost congressional seats in the 1998 midterms as impeachment was being debated. And Clinton survived.

Of course, things change. But, for now, a successful impeachment by the Democrats who control the House of Representatives would surely fail in the Republican-controlled Senate. And, even those Democrats who believe that it is their constitutional oversight responsibility to impeach Trump should think again.

The serious issues are not going away. New disclosures and public testimony are the future. And there are those open investigations that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller referred to other agencies, so it is not like Trump and his minions are getting a pass just yet.

Maybe we can take a lesson from Ukraine, where the voters just elected a real comedian as their president. With all their Russian troubles, the voters cannot be thinking that they can laugh their way through the big problems, but much of what goes on in government is not that big.

Look at Trump. His refusal to deal with Russian cyber-attacks in his election and the upcoming race is nothing to laugh about, and must be addressed. But most of his antics and tweets are laughable, which just might be the survivors’ guide we need for the next two years.

Will Rogers, the great Depression-era pundit who managed to get some laughs during the darkest of political times, said, “I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.