Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
When the Illinois House of Representatives voted to âimpeachâ Governor Rod Blagojevich, a number of blogs carried public comments like âthank heavens heâs gone!â
Of course, heâs not gone, at least not unless heâs convicted by the Illinois Senate or he resigns. And fortunately, most news outlets recognized that âimpeachmentâ is only the first step to removing a public official from office.
So itâs puzzling why so many people equate âimpeachmentâ with an officialâs removal, or a least a verdict of guilt. After all, itâs not as if no one has been âimpeachedâ recently. Bill Clinton was âimpeachedâ just ten years ago, though the Senate narrowly acquitted him, and he seems to have survived quite nicely, thank you. Richard Nixon was about to be âimpeachedâ in 1974, but quit first. Even so, a large part of the citizenry thinks someone who has been âimpeachedâ has been run out of office in disgrace.
âImpeachmentâ derives from the French empĂȘchement, which roughly translates to âan unexpected obstacle.â (While some claim âimpeachmentâ comes from the Latin impetere, meaning attack, the Oxford English Dictionary says there is no etymological evidence for that.) For a governing body, an official accused of misuse of public office, criminally or otherwise, is indeed âan unexpected obstacleâ and must be dealt with.
âImpeachmentâ doesnât just show up in governmental circles, however. Itâs most often heardâwith a positive spinâas âunimpeachable,â meaning âabove suspicion,â ânot to be called in questionâ or âexempt from liability to accusation.â Among its synonyms are âblameless.â
Thus, any public official who is not blameless is, in theory, âimpeachable.â And if every public official not without blame were âimpeached,â perhaps there would be less public confusion over the process.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.