by James M. Truxell

Esquivalient.  Say what?  As we've posted before, "esquivalience" is "the willful avoidance of one's official responsibilities; the shirking of duties; an unwillingness to work, especially as part of a group effort."  That definition is from The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition of 2005, the editor of which created the word out of whole cloth in order to track other dictionaries' attempts at plagiarism. 

It happens to be the adjective
par excellence to describe nearly all of the current crop of congressional Republicans.  They simply won't do the job for which they were elected:  to govern the United States in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Yet you and I continue to pay their salaries . . . and for their benefits once they retire or are voted out of office. 

It's a pretty sweet deal.  They refuse to responsibly engage with House and Senate Democrats or President Obama, contending for their point of view while remembering that politics is "the art of the possible."  Then they justify their obduracy by claiming they are patriotically trying to save the country from the machinations of the President.  Finally, in a conscienceless, fact-free fashion, they heap upon him calumnious adjectives such as "treasonous," "evil," "un-American," etc.  Well, we've got an accurate adjective for them:  esquivalient!   

Sarah Palin (remember her?) has recently joined some other Republicans in calling for President Obama to be impeached.  House Majority Leader John Boehner said "I disagree" with her.  Instead, he wants to sue the President fror executive overreach, etc.  Sarah, never one to pussyfoot around, said "you don't bring a lawsuit to a gunfight.  There's no place for lawyers on the front lines."

Poor overwrought, militant Sarah.  Clearly she suffers from an incurable case of penis envy, lusting after an AK-47 which she probably would be barred from bringing to any impeachment proceedings.  So far, anyhow.

So here's a better idea:  IMPEACH CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS!

We've got good constitutional grounds.

(If this "modest proposal" sounds too ridiculous, how about one of you readers who has a Twitter account start up "#EsquivalientRepublicans".  It might be fun.)




<Back to Congress