Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

~George Santayana

How many times have we heard someone justify a specific course of action by invoking Santayana’s words or some variation thereof?  But the ultimate value of this adage as a compass depends on one essential caveat.  Memory of the past must be accurate.  It must be what actually happened as opposed to what is perceived to have occurred.

Twice this week, I have heard influential Democrats warning anyone who would listen to heed the lessons of history.  The first involves impeachment of Donald Trump.  Even though this may all change when Speaker Pelosi, dare I call her “Nervous Nancy,” meets with her leadership team this afternoon, she has been hesitant to green light impeachment proceedings despite the volumes of evidence of Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors already available.  Her hesitancy is based on a concern that impeachment without conviction by the Senate will result in higher approval ratings for Trump and strengthen the GOP heading into the 2020 election.  To prove the point, Democrats point to the aftermath of the Republican-led impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1988.

Makes sense.  But only if it is true.  Bill Clinton did, in fact, leave office with an approval rating of 65 percent according to a Gallup poll, the highest for a departing president since Harry Truman.  Though one can argue this positive assessment was less about backlash to his impeachment than the fact the economy was strong, the nation was not engaged in any foreign conflicts and his administration balanced the federal budget three years in row, something that was unthinkable when he took office.  Despite these achievements, of the respondents to a 2000 CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll, only 45 percent said he would be missed, 68 percent said he would be remembered most for the scandal involving Monica Lewinsky, and 58 percent felt he was dishonest and untrustworthy.

Yet I doubt Pelosi is really worried how people will remember Trump as a person.  That ship sailed a long time ago.  Her fear is closer to home.  Could the Democrats lose their majority in the House?  Would impeachment make it harder for Trump’s Democratic opponent and lessen the chances her party will take control of the Senate?  Will Democrats in general be punished by voters for political overreach attempting to oust Trump before letting the electorate make that decision in November 2020?  If you use the 2000 election as a harbinger of things the come, the answer is not necessarily so.  After all, despite facing the headwinds of a failed effort by the Republican Senate  to convict Clinton on articles of impeachment and Clinton’s historically high approval rating, the Republicans took back the White House and retained controlled of both houses of Congress.

Case #2:  Elizabeth Warren at the head of the Democratic ticket will be a drag on down-ballot races for House and Senate.  The fallacy in this prediction is not so much whether the historical facts are true, but what history one uses as a benchmark.  If you rely on the 2016 election as your standard, you can make the case.  After all, Democrats were expected, not only to retain the White House, but also to gain control of the House and Senate.  But this comparison works only if you think of Warren as “the female candidate,” or the next Hillary Clinton.

Gender is not what worries Democratic strategists.  It is her progressive policies which they believe will scare moderate voters.  Wouldn’t 2008 be a better comparison?  The same thing was said about Barack Obama.  What could be of more concern than the first African-American with the middle name Hussein at the top of your national slate?  And yet, Democrats handily won the presidency, gained eight seats in the Senate and solidified their House majority by a margin of 257-181.

Do not misinterpret the above as an endorsement of Elizabeth Warren over the rest of the field.  My purpose here is to warn against eliminating a candidate for the wrong reasons.  But I do believe many pundits are misreading the tea leaves.  The American Heartland is yearning for a truly progressive candidate.  They voted for Obama.  But were disappointed and switched to Trump based on his new-found, but clearly trumped-up (pun intended) progressive credentials.  If I am correct, just imagine what would happen if there was a truly progressive candidate who delivered on his/her promises.  It could change the electoral map for years to come.  From a historical perspective, just ask Franklin D. Roosevelt.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP