The impeachment discussion

Reads: 147  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 2

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Editorial and Opinion  |  House: Booksie Classic

Submitted: December 19, 2019

A A A | A A A

Submitted: December 19, 2019

A A A

A A A


The House of Representatives voted for the two articles of impeachment last night. I didn't watch the actual vote, and neither did I watch the 6-hour-long hearings altogether, but I did watch some parts during the night (here the actual vote was held like, at 2 and I went to sleep at 23-ish). In all honesty, it was super boring, because how can someone listen to 6 hours of people arguing with the same fucking arguments over and over again? 

As a person who is not American, it was very interesting to listen to their politicians debate. The American political system itself is very foreign to me. The Congress is bicameral, the Finnish Parliament is unicameral. Here the President has maybe one tenth of the power the President in the United States has. And what came to my mind about a million times last night, was how weird the electoral college system is, because we don't have that either, but the whole country is a single electoral disctict. 

Over the last few months, watching foreign parliament debates, and I mean mostly the American and British, have become a thing Finns do for shits and giggles. Because there is something very hilarious watching Brits yell at each other with their weird accents. It's very different from the debates in the Finnish Parliament, because there it's rarely emotional and the Finnish politics tend to be boring and monotone. This week was weird because apparently 40 people in Syria can divide the country and make politicians have to yell in a microphone to be heard. I'm disappointed, but no can do. 

What came up several times in the discussion, was the "63 million voted for Trump and you can't ignore that". This leads me to the confusion about electoral college, because it's very undemocratic. Someone else's vote for a candidate is lesser than someone else's from another state, which is so weird. A popular vote is very clear, and fairer in a way, and I've never understood who the fuck thought electoral college is a good system that would make sense.

And I'm confused as to why that's the point. What does impeaching a president have to do with the fact they've been voted to that position? I'm sure if Clinton was elected in 2016 and was being impeached right now, the Republicans wouldn't care about how many people voted for her. I mean, Pelosi isn't ignoring those people, but I don't really see how that matters. I mean, you can't impeach a president unless you have a president, and you can't have a president without people voting for someone. Impeaching someone isn't ignoring the people, it's making sure actions have consequences. 

Overall, if there is something both amusing and very odd to me personally in the political discussion in America, it's the American aspect of it. It's funny to see politicians talk to the American people as Americans, about what being American is, because here it's like... what country are these people representing again? If you listen to the Finnish Parliament talk about shit and didn't know they're speaking Finnish and it's from Finland, you would not recognize the country. That's how rarely it's mentioned. It's a rhetoric thing, for sure. American politicians want to prove something by talking about representing the American people and blah blah blah. It's a very good rhetorical device, and I'm sure it convinces a lot of people, no matter who is talking and what party they belong to. I just find it weird because it's not done here, and chances are, if you do it as a politician, people are either going to think you're a populist, overly nationalist asshole, or will realize it's a rhetorical thing and analyze it, instead of falling for it.

Ever since the House revealed the actual articles last week, I've found the second one brilliant. No matter what you think of the Ukraine call, the second one is great, because it's more of the aftermath. It's about Trump not letting key witnesses testify, which is very smart, because that's true, and seriously, could we please have some of the people around Trump testify? I mean, if nothing has happened, you should be able to testify and not be so fucking scared. It's cool they put that there. It's too bad there is very little chance Trump will get kicked out of the White House. 

I was a little surprised listening yesterday when a lot of the Republicans complained about impeachment being a political process and a partisan process. I mean, when did anyone think it was not a purely political process? If someone did, wow, they're stupid. I don't really know what it was like with Nixon or Clinton, I wasn't born yet, so I'm not even going to touch on that. But seriously. Impeachment is only political, and this has proven it, because it's divided the country, and the divide is about the same as political parties. I thought about how this is not yet at least very bipartisan, and that, once again, is a very odd thing for me to understand, because I live in a multiparty country. Maybe impeachment in the US would be less of a political thing if there were more than two major parties. I don't know, but could be.

 


© Copyright 2020 helmu. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Add Your Comments:

Comments

More Editorial and Opinion Essays