The impeachment of Barack Obama and other looming fires

The Thursday after an election -- especially an election like the one that took place this week -- is one of the most useless days of the news year. All this talk coming out of Washington about the prospects for cooperation and compromise, all the pundit bloviating about how Senate Republicans or President Obama are going to have to show the voters that they can make deals and get things done!!! It's mostly baloney -- in fact, it's probably all baloney.

Yeah, I guess there's some chance of some deal-making on some of the only things left that America does well -- cutting corporate taxes, making trade deals that will screw over the few blue-collar jobs that we have left, or ratifying another one of our frequent wars. It's possible that Democrats and Republicans can agree that they oppose Ebola, although there's no guarantee on that.

But here's what I think is most likely that Congress will vote on sometime during 2015 (after they "repeal" Obamacare for the 257th time):

The impeachment of President Barack Obama.

It's far too late for this political Titanic to make that U-turn. The trigger, of course, is immigration. You may recall that earlier this year, Obama pledged that -- with comprehensive immigration reform hopelessly stalled in Congress -- he would take unilateral executive action. The moves that he's reportedly considering:

Obama said that without legislation from Congress, he would take steps to increase border security, upgrade the processing of border crossers and encourage legal immigration. He also said he would offer immigrants who have been illegally in the United States for some time a way to become legal residents, pay taxes, pay a fine and learn English.

The moves could mean legal status for several million undocumented immigrants. Can he do that? Legally, it's murky at best. But we all know that a president can find a lawyer who can write a memo declaring anything legal, from torture (remember war-crime-enabler John Yoo?) to targeted assassination of U.S. citizens. The bigger question: Can he do this politically?

Look, the conventional view -- which, unlike a lot of the "conventional views" that you hear on TV, has some validity -- is that impeachment would be a disaster for America, a Constitutional clash to be avoided at all costs. In the real world, it's more complicated. Obama's bind is this: He energized Latino activists and many rank-and-file voters when he pledged aggressive action on the immigration front earlier this year. Then, the embattled Senate Democrats in red states like Arkansas and Louisiana begged him to stop. What happened next? All those Democrats lost -- and one of the things that hurt the party on Tuesday was a lower-than-hoped for Hispanic turnout, and the fact that more of those who did vote voted Republican.

Now, if Obama breaks his promise to Latino voters, the political damage to his Democratic Party, and whoever might seek the nomination to replace him in 2016, will be enormous. It was these emerging voters who delivered the presidency to Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, and anything that that sours this voting bloc will destroy the grand scheme for Democratic hegemony throughout the 21st Century. In other words, the choice between alienating his best friends and angering his worst enemies may not be much of a choice. Even though the contemplated executive order may increase his odds of impeachment, he may see that road as his only real option.

Both parties have almost certainly come to believe that success -- both recent and especially in 2016 -- depends on NOT compromising. For Team Obama, the calculation probably goes beyond Latinos. Do you remember how black voters rallied behind Bill Clinton in 1998, when the so-called "first black president" was impeached. At a time when some African-American voters are understandably disappointed in the Obama presidency, imagine the lightning-bolt impact of impeachment of the ACTUAL first black president. The same for white liberals (or, as they're calling in the Attytood comments section, "aging hippies").

But what about the Republicans? Most of them go back to their gerrymandered, blood-red, mostly white suburban or rural districts -- where the first question from voters, invariably, is "When are you going to impeach Obama?" So how do you think most will react when Obama waves a red flag in front of them?

So, yeah, this thing is happening. Personally, I'd like to see America's immigration mess straightened out somehow -- but not like this. I think -- and this was true in 1998, but it's more true today -- that when our political leaders play around with something as serious as impeachment, they are playing with fire. Perhaps literally -- because I think the social fabric of America is more dangerously frayed than any time since the 1960s.

In Ferguson and in Greater St. Louis, public officials -- when not thinking up new ways to shield the facts on the killing of Mike Brown from the public and the media -- have spent tens of thousands of dollars on riot gear for the day when Officer Darren Wilson is inevitably cleared of any murder charges. But social unrest doesn't happen in a vacuum. In America's urban areas, a lot of things are already weighing on people's minds, from police brutality to closing their neighborhood schools to efforts to impede their voting rights. What do you think is going to happen when Obama's impeachment is thrown on top of the kindling?

How about we don't find out?