风险的平衡 = 民主 ?

pov: 为什么民主？ 信任大多数人，而不是相信所有的鸡蛋-不要相信一个人-有罪的人性why democracy? trust in the majority, better than put all eggs in a spot - don't trust in a single person - sinful human nature.

领导者做出的许多决定都涉及风险的平衡。 在刑事司法中，“无罪直到证明有罪”一词旨在传达一个决定，即我们作为一个社会，应该更多地担心使无辜者定罪的风险，而不是让一个有罪的人逍遥法外的风险。 监管决策通常也反映了这种“风险与风险”的权衡。 如果我们对电子烟产品的管制过于宽松，则这些产品可能会伤害人们。 如果我们对它们的监管过于严格，则冒着更多的风险是吸烟而不是吸烟。佩洛西议长在首先决定是否展开弹inquiry调查时，现在面临着要进行多快的问题以及是否就开始进行这种调查进行表决的问题，一直在努力平衡风险。 她正在权衡政党的风险和国家的风险，这使她的任务变得复杂。

作为众议院民主党领袖，议长对她的政党负有责任。 进行弹believe，如果公众不认为这样的做法是正当的，将使温和的民主党人在寻求2020年连任时面临共和党的挑战。失去温和的民主党人的席位反过来会威胁众议院的民主党多数派。 在她任期的前九个月中，这种风险似乎在佩洛西的思想中占主导地位 "Many decisions that leaders make involve the balancing of risks. In criminal justice, the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is intended to convey a decision that we — as a society — should worry more about the risk of convicting an innocent person than the risk of letting a guilty one walk free. Regulatory decisions also often reflect this “risk-risk” tradeoff. If we regulate vaping products too loosely, these products may harm people. If we regulate them too tightly, we risk more deaths from people smoking tobacco rather than vaping."

By Stuart Shapiro, opinion contributor — 10/30/19 03:30 PM EDT 846

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

290

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Facebook

FacebookShare to Twitter

Twitter

" style="display:inline-block; line-height:1; margin:0px; padding:0px; text-align:center; text-indent:0px; vertical-align:bottom">Share

 

, Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi50 Cent meets with Pelosi, lawmakers on Capitol Hill Democrats raise stakes with impeachment voteOvernight Energy: House passes bill to prohibit mining near Grand Canyon| Union says EPA refuses to renegotiate contract | Climate protesters occupy Pelosi's office over California firesMORE (D-Calif.) has had a difficult line to walk. The more progressive wing of her caucus wanted to move quickly on impeaching President Donald Trump citing campaign finance violations, the emoluments clause, and the then still-to-be-concluded Mueller investigation. Meanwhile Democrats elected in more moderate districts worried that impeachment would hurt their re-election chances.

Many decisions that leaders make involve the balancing of risks. In criminal justice, the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is intended to convey a decision that we — as a society — should worry more about the risk of convicting an innocent person than the risk of letting a guilty one walk free. Regulatory decisions also often reflect this “risk-risk” tradeoff. If we regulate vaping products too loosely, these products may harm people. If we regulate them too tightly, we risk more deaths from people smoking tobacco rather than vaping.

In first deciding whether to open an impeachment inquiry, and now facing questions of how quickly to proceed, and whether to have a vote on the floor about opening such an inquiry, Speaker Pelosi has been wrestling with balancing risks. Her task is complicated by the fact that she is weighing the risks to her political party as well as the risks to the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the leader of the Democrats in the House, the Speaker has a responsibility to her party. Pursuing impeachment, if the public does not believe such a course is justified, leaves moderate Democrats open to challenges from Republicans as they seek re-election in 2020. Losing seats held by moderate Democrats in turn puts at risk the Democratic majority in the House. For the first nine months of her term, this risk seems to have predominated in Pelosi’s mind.

However, the Democrats also faced (and continue to face) risks by neglecting to impeach the president. The 2020 campaign for Congress will likely be focused on how people feel about the president since he will be at the top of the Republican ticket. A decision not to impeach clearly sends the signal that the offenses  to the current Ukraine scandal — was nothing more than “fake news” and that the Democrats agreed with him (or else they would have pursued impeachment). This would weaken the Democratic electoral position.

As the Speaker of the House, Pelosi also has the responsibility of considering the risks to the country of either impeaching or not impeaching the president. Impeachment would be a national spectacle, and it is unlikely that Congress would be able to work on other legislation while it progressed (although it’s not clear that the Senate is allowing much legislation to pass anyway).

On the other hand, if one believes, as Speaker Pelosi appears to, that Trump’s offenses amount to the very high crimes and misdemeanors envisioned by the founders, the risk of not impeaching him is to sanction those offenses and give future presidents (of either party) license to pursue them. Not impeaching Trump would also exacerbate the risk of the century-long trend of strengthening the executive branch at the expense of the legislature.

The Ukraine scandal, and the constant drumbeat of revelations that it has unleashed, seems to have changed Speaker Pelosi’s assessment of the risks. Her decision to hold a vote on Thursday on the floor of the House is evidence of this change.  As polls indicate growing support for impeachment, the electoral risks to Democrats have shifted — and the risk of not impeaching now outweighs the risk of impeaching for Speaker Pelosi’s party. And the increasing certainty that the president offered Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in return for investigation of his political rivals (and that he abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria) has made it clear that the risks of not attempting to remove him from office have increased for the country.

Impeachment by the House has become increasingly likely. Soon the job of assessing risks both to his party and his country will pass to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Stuart Shapiro is professor and director of the Public Policy Program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University,