I’ve been thinking about this reaction piece Josh Marshall wrote at Talking Points Memo over the weekend, focused on the New York Times editorial calling for Alberto Gonzales’s impeachment. Marshall is struck by how unusual the impeachment of a cabinet official is – the only time Marshall knows it’s been done, the official in question had already resigned. And the reason Marshall figures that it’s so rare is that almost every time a cabinet official runs into as many problems as Gonzales has – with senators saying he’s not credible and the department discombobulated – then said official either resigns to stop the feeding frenzy or gets fired by a boss who wants to look like he’s listening to the people or caring what Congress thinks or what have you. But this time, whatever the reason, Gonzales isn’t quitting and Bush isn’t firing him, and people just seem flummoxed by this. Many people want Gonzales to go, but the only actual procedure by which anyone in Congress can make that happen is impeachment. And impeachment is so seldom used that people are reluctant to use it.
The reason I’ve been thinking about this so much is that it seems to point to something I’ve always been struck by – how much we rely on unwritten rules and understood conventions. There’s so much that we don’t expect or prepare for ahead of time, and for the most we continue to function by giving ourselves some slack to deal with this. But it does leave loopholes in the system for someone who really doesn’t care about keeping up with the conventions – if you’re not willing to play that give-and-take, you can actually get your way quite a bit even if you’re not very well liked at the moment. So it’ll be interesting to watch this play out some more, and see whether any of Gonzales’s opponents decide that they’re gonna have use wht procedural tools they have, clunky though they may be.