It never fails.  Whenever an impeachment diary get more than a handful of comments, foremost among the reasons offered is the notion that it won't happen because, somehow, Democratic Congressmembers are "complicit" with the crimes and misinformation that form the basis of the charges that warrant impeachment.  We see this even now with clammyc's excellent diary on the recommended list exhorting us to not allow our Representatives to ignore evidence that the Bush administration ordered the forgery of intelligence documents to justify our invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Seriously, people, just stop it.

I know, in my last diary, I promised to post the results of some experiments on a guaranteed minimum income.  But in the meantime, I've had an idea occur to me on an abstraction of the structure of free exchange.  It might have something to do with the online group theory textbook I've been reading.  So I figured I'd present it, and see what you all think.

If you've checked my diary history, you'll know that lately, I've been on a kick trying to talk to people about a very important idea.  This time, instead of trying to sell you all on its benefits and mitigate and explain its costs, I'm here to tell you why implementing some sort of basic income guarantee is an absolute necessity.

This is not a candidate diary.  This is about a fairly old idea that, at various times in the history of our country, has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals.  This is an idea that, if implemented, would go a long way toward stabilizing our economy from the bottom up, make the resources available for our economy to grow in new and necessary directions, solve the current credit crisis, and promote such freedom in this country as we have never known.  And the best part is that this would be a program that is applied to everybody, rich or poor, college-aged through the retired, in exactly the same way.  And it is an idea so simple, so easy to sell, even the theocratic fascists that are the Republican party today will buy it.

Follow me over the jump, as I outline this seemingly magical program

Seriously, thank you for the tremendous service you, your campaign and most especially your supporters are doing for the Democratic Party and our Presidential nominee, Barack H. Obama.  

The prevailing economic policy philosophy of the past 20 years has been one which focuses nearly exclusively on supply-side stimulus and deregulation in order to manage the economy for maximal social benefit.  Needless to say, such a philosophy is one-sided, and when faced with crises which arise from the demand-side of the economic equation, it finds itself helpless to successfully manage a transition through those crises.  Much as we faced during the Great Depression, the problems we face today find themselves on the demand-side of the equation.  After all, it is not as if we face a shortage of any good.  Even energy, whose prices are rising, is not in such short supply that it is unavailable for some uses.  Moreover, technologies and practices exist which can mitigate our energy demand, thereby alleviating somewhat any possible supply shortages.

Bear with me, as we try to fill out the demand-side of a more complete economic policy philosophy, find the economic justification for a Guaranteed Minimum Income, and finally raise and deal with some objections to such a program.

The prevailing economic policy philosophy of the past 20 years has been one which focuses nearly exclusively on supply-side stimulus and deregulation in order to manage the economy for maximal social benefit.  Needless to say, such a philosophy is one-sided, and when faced with crises which arise from the demand-side of the economic equation, it finds itself helpless to successfully manage a transition through those crises.  Much as we faced during the Great Depression, the problems we face today find themselves on the demand-side of the equation.  After all, it is not as if we face a shortage of any good.  Even energy, whose prices are rising, is not in such short supply that it is unavailable for some uses.  Moreover, technologies and practices exist which can mitigate our energy demand, thereby alleviating somewhat any possible supply shortages.

Bear with me, as we try to fill out the demand-side of a more complete economic policy philosophy, find the economic justification for a Guaranteed Minimum Income, and finally raise and deal with some objections to such a program.

This is a question that's never been adequately answered to my satisfaction by those who oppose impeachment.  You all often claim that impeachment will be a distraction, and that if we pursue it, it will cause us to lose the Presidential election.  Why?  It doesn't make any sense.

At the end of every war, before there can be lasting peace and real progress, there must come surrender.  Arguably, genocide is another way to end a war, but this is arguable because true genocide is difficult to achieve, just ask the Jews.  In the course of our brief history on this planet, several societies and civilizations have tried to exterminate them, and yet they still exist and even thrive.  For genocide to truly end a conflict, it must be completed, and such an attempt is brutal and tends to work counter to our natural human sympathies for others, gaining allies and converts to the oppressed group, and further complicating the goal of ending the conflict.  

We have a problem.  It seems our politicians, from both sides of the isle, have an odd view of us.  Nancy Pelosi seems to think of protesters on her lawn, and presumably web authors and those who call or write their Representatives to praise or lambaste them for whatever reason, as merely activists to be negotiated, whereas they (the representatives) are the leaders who try to do what can be done.  The front page has recently informed us that the chief of staff of Congressman Joe Knollenburg thinks we're not "real" American citizens.  Apparently, besides being born in this country, paying taxes and voting, a further requirement for citizenship is unquestioning loyalty to the Republican agenda.  

Of course, neither is correct, but while we might think that these misconceptions are their problem, and not ours (after all, if they keep it up, we'll make sure they find themselves out of a job, until they land the cushy lobbying position) the truth is that we are largely responsible for this mistake, and only we can correct it.

As some of you may know, Playboy magazine runs a section about half-way through the magazine called The Forum, where Playboy invites scholars and pundits to contribute their views, usually on politics and the state of the nation.  If you've ever heard anybody claim that they just subscribe to Playboy for the articles, odds are they're talking about The Forum.

This year's October issue has an essay in the Forum by former Watergate lawyer and author of Broken Government and Worse than Watergate, John Dean.  In this essay Dean argues that, for some perverse reason, politicians and pundits from the Democratic party don't think the American people want to hear about, or are capable of understanding, the process of government.  Rather they have certain various "pet issues" and policies that flow from those concerns.  Dean disagrees with this assertion, saying that until Democrats learn to articulate process concerns, Republicans will continue to have virtually unfettered power to distort and control the political landscape.

Follow me, as I fill out Dean's position, add some evidence from other sources, and make the case that a shift to process dialog in politics is even more important and fundamental to political progress than even Dean asserts.

Political theater that is.  And let's be clear on this, that's all that the attempted impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney will likely end up being.  

I just finished watching Bill Maher on his new episode of Real Time last night.  As usual his show was hit and miss, but his teleconference guest that broke up his panel discussions was Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and after he spouted his slogan when Maher asked him why the other Republicans don't like him (something about K Street and Main Street) he mentioned that the way our government manages the economy doesn't make any sense.

And I thought to myself, you know what, he's right.  And then he started pimping his "simple consumption tax" and a quiet fury began to rise within me that only writing this diary for all of you could alleviate.

My father and I had a interesting conversation the other day concerning the swings in political power that have occurred in the past few decades in America.   Specifically, we were trying to figure out how, after nearly half a decade of being the dominant political party, Democrats managed to lose that position to the Republicans, and how, after nearly unprecedented dominance over the political climate of the past decade, Republicans are managing to lose that position as well.

What quality is it specifically that eventually turns voters off of the dominant party?

The Republican party is the most progressive political party in the history of America, and the Democrats are at best a loose coalition of conservatives, obstructionists and racists.  

No, this is not some bizarro world you've just fallen into.  The statement above is true, or at least it was about a hundred years ago.  Its point is to draw out the fact that parties change over time, and that if we think our ideology is important and right, we need to change with them.

Follow me after the jump, and we'll peruse some history in the swings party ideology, and make some guesses as to what will happen in the future.

We need to impeach and remove Richard Cheney and George W. Bush.  I'm not here to argue this proposition with anybody.  If you don't agree, then you don't need to read any farther.  I'm here to talk about how we can get serious about accomplishing it.  

We can pressure our Democratic Congresspeople on impeachment until we're blue in the face.  We can stage sit-ins in their offices, we can call, fax and mail them urging they move on impeachment.  And I can appreciate all these efforts -they've done all they can do.  But they can't overcome the fear of Congressional Democrats that impeachment will be a partisan, divisive, embarrassing affair and will undermine their ability to do good things, and more importantly for a politician, undermine their ability to be seen doing good things.  Until that fear can be overcome, there's very likely not going to be any movement on impeachment.

But there is something we can do to fix this problem, and it's time for us to take this step.

Senator Feingold's diary here today, on why he does not advocate impeachment, touched off another firestorm between the passionate, often lucid pro-impeachment majority and the more patient, seemingly pragmatic anti-impeachment minority.

While I myself am definitely a member of the first camp, my opinion here is offered to both groups for the purpose of finding common ground.  Our topic shall be the consequences of pursuing the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should the vote in the Senate to convict not prevail.  More specifically, I will deal with the notion that failing to convict Bush and Cheney will result in some sort of precedent vindicating their views of Executive power and authority.

Congressional investigations and Administration stonewalling are quickly coming to a Constitutional Showdown.  Like many of you, I believe Congress should use all the powers at its disposal, from inherent contempt to impeachment to enforce the rule of law, expose Administration criminality, and bring a close to the occupation of Iraq.

And we've been fairly successful using carrots and sticks to move our Democratic Congresspeople behind our positions.  Mention has been made in the halls of Congress that they may use inherent contempt.  Sen. Boxer has stated that impeachment should be on the table.  Democratic defections on the war or on opposing Bush's imperial tendencies are nearly unthinkable.

But what to do about those damn Republicans?