in the lions' den

I wasn't sure how to respond when Blair suggested Ethan and I go see David Priess speak about his new book, How to Get Rid of a President.

Despite a title that one might, given the current political climate, think was a how-to guide for the political left, the book is a historical survey, going back to Washington. I can't say whether I like it or not, as I haven't read it yet. Maybe over the Thanksgiving weekend.

Anyway, on the one hand, Ethan is into history -- especially the personalities. And I'm really into process. So the topic seemed like a winner for both of us.

On the other hand, I'm more or less center-right politically. The talk was to be at Barnes & Noble on the Upper West Side, and figured (by virtue of title and location) to bring in a decidedly leftist crowd. I wasn't looking forward to going into the lions' den, but it's important not to avoid views with which one disagrees. So off we went.

I should acknowledge, first of all, that the audience wasn't the braying mob that I expected. Actually, it wasn't a full crowd -- which is a loss for those who could have gone and didn't.

Priess started off by talking briefly about impeachment and conviction (a topic he kept returning to) as well as 25A (which he didn't). But he explained that he's taking a broader view of what it means to get rid of a president. He noted that that broad view included assassination -- which he understatedly said was an insult to the voters. He also talked about what he likened to a pocket veto -- the President's staff actively preventing the President from doing his job.

As to that last matter, he talked about how H.R. Haldeman, as Nixon's chief of staff would take orders and simply not follow through. More recently there have been the reports (including an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times) of President Trump's staff conspiring to keep him from carrying out what they consider to be ill-advised policies. When he mentioned that, I sat up and noticed. He had just said that assassinating the president was (among other things) an "insult to the voters." While this kind of removal of a president from his job isn;t as severe or irreversible as assassination, it seems to me that it's also an insult to the voters. Perhaps reading my mind, he did eventually get around to that point. He noted that, however well-intentioned, this substitution by a political appointee of his own judgement for that of the elected president is a dangerous road to go down -- it effectively nullifies an election and reduces the ability of future presidents to trust their staffs.

All in all, an interesting talk. Hopefully the book is as good.