Serving Clovis, Portales and the Surrounding Communities
Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and last week’s House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump, The News caught up with Donald “Doc” Elder, a history professor at Eastern New Mexico University, for his perspective on it all:
Q: What elements of the last 10 days have precedent?
A: It has been precedented in American history for election results to be challenged, most famously in 1876 when three states sent in two completely different sets of election results. It literally wasn’t resolved until a few days before the inauguration. This is not the first time people have said the results of the election were tainted.
Q: But there’s never been something done by the citizenry like on Jan. 6, correct?
A: The British did it in 1814, but they were an invading army. A lot of people might not be aware of the fact that after the assassination of Martin Luther King, the riots that took place in Washington, D.C., happened a few blocks from the Capitol. They set up machine guns outside the Capitol in case riots got that close. But that wasn’t for violence at the Capitol; that was for potential spillover violence.
Q: It’s probably too lengthy to detail everything that is unprecedented about the last 10 days, but what stands out to you?
A: I don’t want to make it political. I don’t care if it was Republicans or Democrats. You just don’t see American citizens storming the U.S. Capitol. You see them protest at the Pentagon, you see them protest at the White House, you see them protest at the Capitol. To my knowledge, there has never been an attempt to break in and disrupt the flow of government.
Q: President Trump does not plan to attend Joe Biden’s inauguration. What similarities do you see with previous general election losers? Andrew Jackson comes to mind.
A: It really wasn’t that big of a deal (until recently). If you look at the first seven presidents of the United States, three of them didn’t attend the inauguration of their successor. It came to be a big deal over time that the outgoing president would attend the inauguration of the incoming president.
It just seems to be one of those things that caught on, like the State of the Union. Thomas Jefferson altered history. He was a horrible public speaker, possibly the worst among presidents from everything I’ve been able to figure out. He chose to give his address to a clerk, who then read it to Congress. James Madison decided to follow suit, James Monroe decided to follow suit. All of his successors kept doing it that way until Woodrow Wilson shows up in person to give it. Then people said maybe it should be given in person.
Sometimes there’s a logical reason something becomes a precedent and sometimes people just keep doing it one way until somebody else does it differently.
Q: The Senate votes on whether to remove a president from office after an impeachment by the House. However, the Senate is in recess until Tuesday, and can only come into session before then with unanimous consent. What makes the Senate different from the House in this regard?
A: That goes back to the people that wrote the Constitution. They wanted the Senate to be a much more deliberative body. I think right from the word go, there was an assumption of that. You’re elected for six years instead of two. The way the Constitution was originally written (prior to the 17th Amendment in 1913), senators weren’t elected. They were chosen by their legislatures. You could be more deliberative, and you didn’t have an electorate looking over your shoulder.
Q: Assuming the Senate does not convene until Tuesday, what is the point of a vote to convict?
A: There are obviously people who look at it as a political matter. I look at it as a historian. I see no particular reason to do that. He’s going to be out of office. Some are really of the opinion if he is impeached and convicted, that would not legally preclude him from running for office. There are some people who think it would, but I don’t know if that would stand up in a court of law.
Q: So it’s basically something we believe in theory would go one way, but there’s been no legal test — just like, for example, the idea of a former two-term president being selected as VP on a future ticket.
A: Yes, exactly.
Q: What do you believe will be the electoral consequences for how a congressional member votes on impeachment in the House or conviction in the Senate?
A: I asked myself that question, and I looked at the 10 Republicans that did vote to impeach. I hate to be too cynical when I don’t know motives and I don’t know these people. But they’re in districts that tend to be razor-thin margins. It seems to be politically expedient that they’re coming across as moderate.
Q: One of our state’s three representatives, Yvette Herrell, voted against impeachment. Given the district’s demographics, do you think it’s a fair estimation the vote won’t hurt her?
A: It’s fair to say it bolsters Herrell. I can feel comfortable saying that.
Q: Those electoral consequences are still two years away. What challenges do you see lawmakers facing during their terms, regardless of how they voted?
A: I honestly don’t. The recall ability that some states have, like what (Gov.) Gavin Newsom is facing in California, that doesn’t apply to people in Congress. It’s just a matter of how long the memory is. I do not see any short-term consequences.
Q: I hate to ask if the impeachment and insurrection could potentially cause more gridlock, because my half-joking response would be, “How could you tell the difference?”
A: I could be wrong, but I think the first thing President Biden will try to get accomplished is a bigger stimulus. That may be something Republicans will vote for because it’s going to look good to their constituents. I don’t think, in the short term, you’ll see more gridlock than currently existed. But the first time you see something about defunding the border wall or something like that, I wouldn’t be surprised if sides are even more entrenched.
Q: There is discussion of expelling members of Congress for interference with a transition of power. Under what circumstances has this been used in the past?
A: Some members have been expelled, and it’s usually for corruption. There was a guy named Adam Clayton Powell who was expelled for corruption. There are people who have been expelled for bad behavior.
Back in the 1850s, there was a man (Preston Brooks of South Carolina) who went into the chambers and beat (Massachusetts Senator) Charles Sumner to insensibility, and he got expelled from the House of Representatives.
There are people expelled for a wide range of matters. You don’t usually see representatives accused of inciting sedition; that’s kind of a new one.
Q: What do you think will be our overall reaction in the weeks and months following the insurrection?
A: There are two ways we can go on this. It could just widen the gap. But I look at something like the killings at Kent State and the two students killed at Jackson State. That was a moment that could have widened the gulf, but people took a step back and said, “Is this what we really want for our country?”
There was opposition to the war still, but you never saw that level of anger until we actually withdrew from Vietnam. I hope this is one of those times violence can cause us to be a little introspective and ask ourselves if this is what we want as a country.
— Compiled by Editor Kevin Wilson