Scandal Fatigue: America After Impeachment

Summary

The article discusses the phenomenon of "scandal fatigue" in America, particularly in the context of the impeachment process, and suggests that constant political scandals have led to public desensitization and a focus on issues that are disconnected from the concerns of everyday Americans.

Abstract

The article "Scandal Fatigue: America After Impeachment" reflects on the public's response to the impeachment of Donald Trump and the broader impact of political scandals on American society. It highlights Andrew Yang's caution to Democrats about the dangers of being overly fixated on impeachment proceedings, a sentiment that resonates with many Americans. The piece notes that despite intense media coverage, Trump's approval ratings remained stable, suggesting that the impeachment had little effect on public opinion. The author, while traveling through "flyover country," observes a disconnect between the political elite in Washington, D.C., and the rest of the nation, which is more concerned with substantive issues than political gamesmanship. The article also points out that the constant drumbeat of scandals, investigations, and "bombshells" has led to a sense of fatigue and skepticism among the public, who see little tangible impact from these events.

Opinions

Andrew Yang is critical of the Democratic Party's focus on impeachment, believing it detracts from addressing the underlying issues that led to Trump's election.
The author suggests that the impeachment process has not produced significant change, citing legal expert Noah Feldman's opinion that Trump can claim he was not impeached due to the delay in sending articles of impeachment to the Senate.
There is a perception that both Republicans and Democrats engage in questioning the legitimacy of their opponents, contributing to a cycle of scandals and investigations.
The article implies that the frequency of scandals and the lack of substantial outcomes have led to a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, where the public becomes desensitized to allegations and investigations.
The constant repetition of talking points by a small group within the D.C. bubble is seen as out of touch with the daily lives and concerns of ordinary Americans.
The public's view of corruption as widespread diminishes the impact of scandal coverage, as there is no longer shock value in allegations that are presented as decisive or final.
The notion of impeachment leaving a "stain" is challenged by the subsequent political successes of those involved in past impeachments, such as the Clintons and Alcee Hastings, suggesting that such events do not necessarily hinder future political prospects.

Andrew Yang warns Democrats: “stop being obsessed over impeachment” and other no-win games — Americans agree…

Andrew Yang photo by Gage Skidmore.

Eight of America’s 20 wealthiest counties surround Washington, D.C. The rest of Americans living between the coastal cities are dubbed “flyover country,” places where the needle isn’t moved by the political narratives of the day.

I happened to be on the road, moving through the Carolinas, West Virginia and Tennessee as three years of daily impeachment chatter was resulting in a December 18 House vote.

Dozens of us gathered in a sports bar where one of the big screens played the impeachment hearings and the rest played sports programming. The sound was off on all these shows while the room concentrated on a big game of Trivial Pursuit. I had to use my iPad to hear the sound.

In the little noticed Democrat debate December 19, Andrew Yang warned: “What we have to do is we have to stop being obsessed over impeachment, which … strikes many Americans like a ball game where you know what the score is going to be. And start actually digging in and solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected in the first place.”

Focus groups had people of all political stripes giving Yang good marks for his impeachment comments during the debate.

Ninety days of intense wall-to-wall fixation on impeachment resulted in Donald Trump initially slipping three percentage points in the polls only to regain those numbers and add three more percentage points for a six point gain.

When I covered politics full-time, the excitement of the campaigns produced a “high” followed by a “Let-down” after the election but at least some things changed from the campaign. But what changes have the impeachment campaigns or scandal fixations produced?

Noah Feldman, one of the Democrat expert witnesses, says Trump can now legitimately argue he hasn’t been impeached because Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t send them to the Senate.

Pelosi is basically like a prosecutor who got a grand jury to indict her adversary who now says she doesn’t know whether to take the case to court.

5 reasons we tune out scandals

Legitimacy. Republicans questioned the legitimacy of Bill Clinton (who never reached 50 percent of the vote) and Barack Obama (the birther questions) and Democrats questioned the legitimacy of both George W. Bush (remember the 2000 Florida recount?) and Donald Trump (the impeachment and Russia talk began before he was inaugurated).

The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Starting on September 11, 2012, Republicans daily investigated Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and questions about Benghazi. Trump was being investigated before he got elected. Daily we hear about “bombshells” implying someone has been caught. Little changes. We knew this would happen with the impeachment but the people kept chatteringbabout “what if?” over “what is.”

Daily we hear the same talking points over and over — overwritten by a small group in D.C. who knows little about the concerns and lives of ordinary Americans outside the gated community power bubbles. Powerful narratives change conversations and connect with Americans.

Corruption is considered so widespread and common that there is no shock value from the continuous “ this is really it, this time” coverage.

The “stain of impeachment” the elites talk about forgets Bill Clinton was impeached and that impeachment was seldom mentioned in references to him and his circle. Within a year, his wife (an Illinois native from Arkansas) was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York before running two campaigns for president. Also within that same year of his “stain of impeachment”: Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, won the popular vote and barely lost the closest presidential election in history.

If that “stain” didn’t slow down the Clintons why does anyone think it will slow down the Trumps? Not to mention, Alcee Hastings, the congressman who was impeached came back and helped manage the efforts to impeach Trump?