A trial would fail, and split the U.S. when unity behind progressive ideas is needed

Michael Tomasky

is American editor of the Guardian newspaper of London.

He is American.

High crimes and misdemeanors? Sure. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are constitutional rogues of the highest order. Strictly on the merits, impeachment proceedings should begin posthaste.

But there are compelling reasons people -

especially

liberals who are most inclined to want to see Bush and Cheney in the dock - should step back and consider the larger ramifications of such a move.

Most people think of impeachment as a purely legal action. But it is also - indeed, I'd argue that it is even chiefly - a political action. And political actions produce reactions that we may not be crazy about.

My argument starts here: Barring any new and shocking information, impeachment will fail. Let me repeat: It. Will. Fail.

The rules say 67 votes are needed in the Senate to convict, which would mean every Democrat and 16 Republicans - an utter impossibility. Do you know how many votes there would be today? Probably fewer than 10. Fewer than five. In fact, I can think of only one, and he's a maybe: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

Could the process of hearings and revelations change that? Yes; it could raise the number of "no" votes as high as 30, 35. That would still be a massive failure.

In addition, there's just no time for it now. We're picking Bush's successor this year. The clock is blissfully running out on him. If House leaders announced tomorrow that they wanted to impeach - which they won't, but if they did - it probably would be April before they staffed a committee and an investigative team, and June before they started hearings.

Then comes congressional recess. Then come the conventions. Then comes the general election campaign (and more congressional recess!). And I haven't even mentioned the Bush administration's inevitable stonewalling, refusal to answer subpoenas, etc. In real life, proceedings would barely get off the ground before the next president's moving van showed up.

I understand rank-and-file Democrats' impatience with their party's leaders in Congress. Demand that they de-fund the war if you wish, press them to end immunity for the telecoms on the surveillance question. But if you're asking the Democrats to

impeach

, you're asking them to undertake an effort that's bound to fail and for which there's no time anyway.

But there is an even bigger reason to oppose impeachment. Consider the historical moment. Just two years ago, Karl Rove was bragging about the coming conservative majority that would dominate America for years.

Today, not only is that prospect dead and gone, but the opposite seems plausible: Democrats have the best chance they've had in 30 or 40 years to elect a president and something close to working majorities in both houses of Congress.

That means they have a chance to get the country, or enough of the country, united around an agenda that includes changing the course of foreign policy and doing something about health care, climate change, the right to unionize, and a host of other domestic needs.

The operative word in the above paragraph is

united.

Because Democrats have an activist agenda, they need to build coalitions in support of their proposals. And because liberals constitute only about 20 percent of the country's voting adults, those coalitions will have to include moderates, independents and some Republicans.

Impeachment would make building those coalitions extremely difficult. It would divide the country. It would alienate many moderates and infuriate many Republicans. It would be seen by many nonpartisan people as revenge for what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton. This may be unjust, but it is so.

And so, finally, we get to the rub, or what I think are the concerns that have to be balanced here.

On the one hand, there is the urge to take a principled stand in defense of the Constitution. At stake is not only the fate of Bush and Cheney, but also the possibility that future administrations will feel emboldened to behave cavalierly toward our laws.

On the other hand, there is consideration of the risks involved in the face of the virtual certainties that this effort (a) will fail, and (b) will prove deeply divisive at precisely the moment Democrats have a chance to unite a majority behind progressive ideas for the first time in a generation or more.

I respect people who take the former position. I understand that my position may have all the appeal of a New York Giants billboard on Broad Street, but I take the latter view, and I take it emphatically.

And I don't accept that my argument is one of expediency over principle. Universal health care and a sane foreign policy are principles, too. I'm on their side.