The term “constitutional crisis” has been used to classify an array of American democratic features. Any time a legal question, a controversial decision or executive order is in the news, the term “constitutional crisis” is on the tips of everyone’s tongue. Recently, the term has been applied to the impeachment process in Congress. Although, the constitution specifically states the ways in which an impeachment should be handled, political pundits, partisan politicians and extreme supporters of both parties have stated that the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump is a “constitutional crisis”. While, this is not the case when discerning legal fact, the ways in which the process has been handled by some, is a break with a long standing democratic norms of forbearance, tolerance and ethics.

There have only been three impeachments in American history spanning from the 1800s to the present. The first being President Andrew Johnson who was impeached and charged with 11 high crimes and misdemeanors in 1868. Almost one hundred and thirty years later, in 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached on three charges. Last week, the Senate voted on the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. He was charged with obstruction of congress and abuse of power. All three impeachments have ended in acquittals but, this is not what is striking about the trial itself. In understanding that the process is overtly political and decidedly partisan, what is most egregious is the choices made by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. Since early on in his political career, Mitch McConnell has been seen as a divisive and partisan figure. But his political story has only become more unethical since the election of Donald Trump. 

Admittedly, he may be just one of the many sources of the anti-democratic waves within the United States. Beginning with chants like “Not my President” at the first women’s march to comments made by House Representative Rashida Tlaib, stating “We are going to go in there, and we are going to impeach the mother******.” On the other side, the opposition to the  Russian probe and the Mueller Report, have given way to a Washington culture that is viewed by both sides as somewhat illegitimate. The built up anger and political animosity has culminated in a highly contested impeachment.

While the sample pool is very small for impeachment, what can be taken away from each previous one was the need for witnesses to testify in the trial period and the separation (whether true or in show) between the leader of the party and the white house. The peak the debate over new witnesses in the Senate trial. The impeachment was grounded in the idea that the President had knowledge of and explicitly directed, State department employees and his personal lawyer Rudy Guillani, to make Ukrainain aid money contingent on investigations of the Biden family for his personal and political gains. This would have likely been supported by John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump during the time where this quid-pro-quo allegedly took place. In an effort to pacify the Democrats on the issue, Republicans threatened that they would call Hunter Biden to testify. This may sound like political hardball but, in this case it goes far deeper. During this period, the Senate is supposed to be impartial jurors and in the past the Leaders of their party would not communicate and coordinate with the White House on strategy. This was exemplified by the Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle stating that he needs to keep a “personal distance” from the president. In contrast, Mitch McConnell has openly admitted his coordination with the White House. 

The formal impeachment process begins with an investigation in the house and a formal trial in the Senate. Although the constitution does not specifically state the way a trail should go it is widely understood that the trial should have witnesses to the alleged crimes. An ABC News/Washington Post poll, found that 66% of Americans say the Senate should call witnesses to testify. This is not to say that public opinion should sway the rules of a trial. Rather, the poll backs up the norm that in America, a fair trial is guaranteed by the constitution, furthermore indicting Mitch McConnell in his attention to rules of the game.

One of the fundamental ways a democracy stays a democracy is that it operates under a set of norms that perfect the underuse of powers given by the constitution. This is exemplified by the ability for those in power to strategically maveur their political wills without damaging relations so deeply, as to ruin the future of legitimacy. Levitsky and Ziblatt explained in, How Democracies Die, how certain norms have changed over the years and how some have become laws including court packing and the two term limit. Secondly, a regression from these norms could be considered a step toward a real constitutional crisis. Adherence to norms are incredibly important to how the branches of government will operate in the future with a level of unity and cooperation. This is why Mitch McConnell’s partisan choices are so troubling.

Throughout his tenure he has been accused of a swath of anti-democratic moves. One of the most high profile incidents took place when he chose not to have hearings for Barack Obama’s supreme court pick when Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. This time, his actions are a bit more wonky and the lines have grayed. While, it is true that the Senate must take a vote on whether to allow witnesses, the precedent set by every past impeachment has been that witnesses are a requirement to get the full picture. The party line vote on witnesses (excluding Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Mitt Romney) is an example of Mitch McConnell’s sway to hold people accountable to him, his ability to ignore robust norms and his lack of forbearance. As explained by Livitsky and Ziblatt, forbearance is the idea that politicians should exercise restraint in deploying their political prerogatives. This allows him, and both parties to weaponize the game in a way that is not just partisan, it’s anti-democratic. 

Mitch McConnell’s purposeful disregard for forbearance, toleration and democratic norms has led to a culture in the Congress of putting party over cooperation. This loyalty to a figure rather than a democratic institution makes the game of democracy harder to sustain. For the culture to change for the better leaders must take a stand against the forces inching Americans toward authoritarianism. Looking at impeachment now, it was not a constitutional crisis, but it has pushed this question to the forefront of political society: Can we sustain the democratic norms we have in place or have the democratic leaders we’ve elected fallen into an anti-democratic spiral? 

 Lieberman, Robert C., Suzanne Mettler, Thomas B. Pepinsky, Kenneth M. Roberts, & Richard Valelly. “Trumpism and American Democracy: History, Comparison, and the Predicament of Liberal Democracy in the United States.” Working paper.
Levitsky, Steven & Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown. Chapter 5.
Lieberman, Robert C., Suzanne Mettler, Thomas B. Pepinsky, Kenneth M. Roberts, & Richard Valelly. “Trumpism and American Democracy: History, Comparison, and the Predicament of Liberal Democracy in the United States.” Working paper.
Levitsky, Steven & Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown. Chapter 6.