Should there be more frequent impeachment of presidents?

The only times in American history that presidential power has substantially receded, other than at the conclusion of major wars, has been in the aftermath of impeachment crises. The Johnson impeachment led to the era of notoriously forgettable presidents and an era of congressional primacy lasting into the early 20th century. Nixon prompted a backlash that included the War Powers Resolution, the Church Committee, and a slew of other ethics and civil liberties measures aimed at reining in the abuses and corruption exposed by Watergate. And then Nixon was followed by the two least imperial, most restrained, least impeachable presidents of the post-WWII era.

The tendency to concentrate power in a plebiscitary unitary executive is the most persistent and fatal flaw in our structure of checks and balances. It’s a problem deeper than Trump and it long predates him, and partisans on both sides have no intention of trying to fix it. It is the poison that produces so much of our constitutional dysfunction.

But the only effective mechanism we have for turning back this ratchet effect is to, every once in a while, kick one of the bastards out of the office in disgrace. Or at least come close enough that it’s a credible threat. It is the only proven tool we have to dial the monster back and reset people’s messianic expectations for the federal government’s chief bureaucrat.

Beyond the particulars of Trump and his crimes, any plan of opposition to the imperial presidency must include a more liberal and frequent usage of impeachment for all manner of presidential misconduct. Declining to impeach Trump would have the opposite effect, and create a political precedent that the impeachment power is effectively unusable and an empty threat.

We need to impeach presidents more often, and I’m fine starting with this one.