Is George W. Bush the new Andrew Johnson?

I normally try to avoid current political issues on this blog, for a variety of reasons. In fact, I hesitated to post this for a while, because I very much do not want my Lincoln blog turned into a forum for the sort of abrasive, divisive political commentary that has become commonplace these days, in the blogosphere and elsewhere. But I saw something a few days ago that I can't help but comment upon, something that made me instinctively draw a connection between our current president and Lincoln's vice president--though perhaps in a not-quite-so-obvious way.

The something--or rather somethings--were two op-ed articles I read in The American Prospect. The links are here and here. (you could also toss in this piece that appeared in The Washington Post, though my point of view differs from Mr. Robinson's). The articles concern serious conversations among some people about whether or not Bush and prominent members of his administration should be impeached.

Now, I am myself quite disappointed in Bush, particularly in his second term. He has badly mismanaged the Iraqi War, has embraced highly questionable policies related to national security, civil liberties and executive power--not to mention his education and economic policies-- and he has proven unable to consistently use the presidential "bully pulpit" as he should.

Still, the overweening hatred felt by many on the Left for President Bush seems to have severely impaired their judgment. In some cases this animosity has caused otherwise rational people to become, well, unhinged. How else to explain the impeachment talk in those two American Prospect articles, and elsewhere? We're not talking the Internet lunatic fringe or the vast wasteland of political talk radio, either; these are serious, otherwise thoughtful people.

Nothing George W. Bush has done rises to the level of a "high crime and misdemeanor." One could plausibly argue that Mr. Bush has acted with incompetence, shortsightedness, reckless disregard, and perhaps dishonesty. But these are not impeachable offenses, and the damage that could be done to the Constitution if they were treated as such would be considerable.

Which leads me to Andrew Johnson. I think Bush acts upon his critics' minds in much the same way that, a long time ago, Johnson caused his critics' political and legal judgment to short-circuit. Yes, Johnson was a terrible president. But his impeachment trial was an unfortunate incident in our nation's political history, undertaken largely by men whose hatred of Johnson was such that they could not see how badly their actions reflected upon both themselves and the government. Even those historians who most vigorously disapprove of Johnson's record also tend to agree that the impeachment trial was a very bad idea.

I hope for the country's sake that those who seem bent on subjecting George Bush to a similiar ordeal pause and consider carefully what they are doing. And isn't it interesting that many of these same people a decade ago narrowly construed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in an effort to clear President Clinton's name? There is a certain cold comfort, I suppose, in realizing that hypocrisy is equally alive and well with some people on both ends of the political spectrum.