I have a hazy memory of the last time a president faced removal from office. I was in third grade, and my teachers and parents made me feel as if Bill Clinton’s impeachment had nothing to do with me. I couldn’t affect the outcome, and the outcome wouldn’t affect me. At the time, I admit, I was largely preoccupied with obtaining a pair of glitter capris from Limited Too, and figuring out what the big deal was with this so-called “blow job”. But I’m now a 28-year-old writer, and it occurs to me that impeachment is still being presented as a mysterious pageant that the average person can’t even begin to understand.

On Thursday, the House will vote for the first time on the impeachment inquiry, going on record in regard to the rules for public hearings. The decision over what will be revealed to the American public fails to contend with the reality that very few people will feel empowered to form an opinion about that information, and even fewer will have the drive to do anything about it.

But if the American government is going to bother masquerading as a democracy, then the public must be empowered to participate in the political process with the help of our political and media gatekeepers. As it stands, our elected officials are conducting themselves as if their behaviour does not require the consent of the governed, and the standard coverage of their conduct ratifies this as an acceptable reality. Not to go all Schoolhouse Rock on you here: but there will not be a government by and for the people, unless it is driven by our input.

Now, the word “democracy” has become the rhetorical equivalent of a used Band-Aid. Conservative men will likely want to jump in here to insist that, um, actually, America is a “republic.” Except America is neither of those things. As it stands, a small group of people is making the majority of decisions about the wealth and power of this nation – and they’re not even pretending that that we have any input. The oligarchy has never been so obvious as through the lens of impeachment.

Part of the problem is that the conversation about impeachment has been framed as a face-off between two teams by many of the leading figures in mainstream media. Politico regularly issues headlines citing gains for Democrats or Republicans in the House’s inquiry, while The New York Times asserts the unlikeliness of conservative senators voting to impeach, as if it is a matter of fate: “[Impeachment] would require 20 Republicans to side with Democrats in convicting Mr Trump,” the paper of record wrote in a recent article, “and few observers believe that will happen.”

This past weekend, at a Nationals game in Washington DC, the audience booed President Trump when he appeared on screens at the game, with many in the crowd chanting, “Lock him up.” In response to this, Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski said the crowd shouldn’t have have booed, and expressed concerned over behaviour from “both sides”. “If u want to make your voice heard, vote,” she wrote on Twitter.

White House claims that there were 'some people cheering' when Trump was booed at the baseball game

It should be obvious that it is possible, and in fact necessary, to raise our voices beyond the ballot box, especially given that the current president lost the popular vote. Political acts beyond voting are a historical piece of democratic culture, no matter who inhabits the Oval Office. Our elected officials should seek to be held accountable to those they represent, and it is the job of the journalist to empower people with the information they need to make our will known. Brzezinski’s insistence that people stop booing is more than a tone-deaf tweet. Her words encapsulate a grander failing of impeachment coverage overall, and the way it denies us the ability to raise our voices as a public.

The most critical sickness in American politics is that we have been kept from the constant civic participation that democracy requires by political and media gatekeepers who perpetuate the idea that politics is a spectator sport. That’s especially obvious with impeachment.

The binary framing of impeachment as some sort of death match between Democrats and Republicans creates a sense of inevitability that is baldly anti-democratic. In my personal opinion, the Republican Party is – in the words of Noam Chomsky – “the most dangerous organisation in human history,” and the Democratic party is mostly a bunch of bureaucrats tending to the status quo like it’s their personal zen garden. But this is not about the appropriate attribution of blame or my own particular ideological leanings. I write this with a bias only towards true democracy. That requires each and every one of us to raise our voices all the time, and I truly do mean that, even if we disagree politically.

One of the most absurd elements of the current impeachment conversation – and there are many – is that we must simply accept the proceedings in Washington as “just the way things are”. The presentation of two sides pushes us to the sidelines, where even the most avid participation is a matter of cheering the loudest for your team. Impeachment is about the integrity of our democracy, and right now the clear loser is the American people. Our congressional representatives are meant to represent us; that means the full scope of their constituents, not just the people who voted for them, and certainly not the agenda of their political party. If our elected officials refuse to enact public will in regard to impeachment, then, they too, need to be removed from office.

We’ve gotten to the point where our elected officials proceed as if they cannot be held accountable in impeachment proceedings, or when it comes to passing policy proposals for the climate crisis, gun reform, and healthcare – issues which the majority of the country believes are in need of solutions. Moneyed interests, gerrymandering, the geographical bias of our electoral process, and voter suppression are among the structural realities that suppress our voices. In spite of these obstacles, our media and political gatekeepers should be working to empower us with the information we need to express ourselves as a citizenry, or rather, that is what they would be doing if they gave a shit about democracy.

If you’re witnessing impeachment for the first time right now, I’ll tell you now the same thing I would tell my third-grade self, even though she was not yet old enough to vote: no matter who you are, politics affects you, and that means you have the right and duty to express your opinion in the political conversation.

Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Show all 26 1 /26 Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Donald Trump Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why. EPA Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal The Whistleblower Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable. Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal The Second Whistleblower The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Rudy Giuliani Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trump’s personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the president’s enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a “shadow” foreign policy. In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trump’s behalf and has called himself a “hero”. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Volodymyr Zelensky The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House. With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation. He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the “favour” he was asked for. Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin. AFP/Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Mike Pence The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later. However, Trump announced that Pence had had “one or two” phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trump’s actions. It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Rick Perry Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didn’t even want to. The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Joe Biden The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election. Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Biden’s son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done. However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Hunter Biden Joe Biden’s son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Biden’s lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal William Barr The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trump’s preoccupations with the Biden’s and the Clinton emails. Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a “cover-up of a cover-up”. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Mike Pompeo The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works. Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president. AFP via Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Nancy Pelosi The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.” Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Adam Schiff Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry. He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a “parody” of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call. He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint. The Washington Post awarded Schiff a “four Pinocchios” rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October. Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal William Taylor The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff – later identified as diplomat David Holmes – overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about “investigations” the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trump’s opponents, saying: “It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support." Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal George Kent A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer, of leading a “campaign of lies” against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Marie Yovanovitch One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack “very intimidating”. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: “She’s going to go through some things.” Yovanovitch said she was “shocked, appalled and devastated” by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation. REUTERS Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Alexander Vindman A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment. One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trump’s 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Jennifer Williams A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it “unusual” because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Kurt Volker The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraine’s reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Tim Morrison An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Gordon Sondland In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: “Was there a quid pro quo? Yes,” said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the president’s political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his evidence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr Trump who went from calling Sondland a “great American” a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Laura Cooper A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August – undermining a Republican argument that there can’t have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didn’t know that aid was being withheld. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal David Hale The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: “I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.” EPA Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Fiona Hill Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand”. She said: “I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up’. And here we are.” AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal David Holmes The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald Trump. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line – because his voice was so “loud and distinctive” and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear – asking about the “investigations” and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate. REUTERS

It is imperative that everyone feeling rage over impeachment proceedings channel it into action, and not just in November 2020. To be quite clear, Mika isn’t wrong that we should vote. But voting is only the most basic, transactional mode of citizenship.

Raising your voice can mean booing. It can also mean contacting elected officials, donating, or protesting. It can mean volunteering on a campaign, or running for office yourself. In the sense of expressing political opinions, we all need to constantly be raising our voices, not only in a state of emergency, but with the same committed regularity of brushing your teeth. Indeed, democracy is not a thing we have; it is a thing we must do, and all the time.

We love to think we’re free in America, but we won’t be, until we commit to the work of constant citizenship out of a duty to the collective. It is in continually raising our voices that we will achieve the equitable public power we all deserve. Getting the demon sweet out of office is just a bonus.