Never mind that the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the president. The firing of Comey is not a constitutional crisis until there is evidence that it is. Democrats have spent months impugning Comey's integrity, after all, and most Republicans weren't exactly fans either.
I've defended Comey's integrity on numerous occasions, although I don't believe he was particularly good at his job. Firing him was a mistake: The optics are appalling. Trump's stated reasons for firing him are completely absurd. Still, it's difficult to believe that Comey was dismissed because he was on the cusp of some great Kremlingate discovery. In fact, if Comey were about to break the case wide open, he would have more freedom to divulge that information now.
Moreover, the Russian investigation doesn't end with Comey. With Comey gone, it will likely end with someone far more competent. The melodramatists wishcasting the next Watergate on cable news know this well. (If Trump names a lackey and the Senate lets him, then we have a crisis.) It is far more likely, as one Wall Street Journal article points out, that the president was looking for a pretext to fire the FBI director for wholly Trumpian reasons. They are not good. They are not Nixonian.
But I'm open to believing the worst-case scenario. So if the Senate wants to pressure the president or launch an independent investigation, I'm all for it. Separation of powers is a vital component of healthy governance. The problem, though, is that Democrats embrace these checks and balances only when they're convenient.
I know, I know — whataboutism! But it's something more serious than a "gotcha." It's a cycle of partisanship that has truly corroded our institutions.
Fact is, we've had (at least) two norms-busting presidents with authoritarian impulses in a row. Both believe in ruling with a pen and a personality, and disregarding process whenever it suits their political purposes. One was a thoughtful-sounding charismatic force and a talented fibber, a virtuoso at erecting strawmen and offering false choices. He pushed his party farther to the left than it has ever been. The other is a clumsy and transparent fibber, an incompetent novice pushing his party into whatever ideologically untethered position is catching his fancy at the moment. Only one of these men, however, was given a free pass by most people in the institutional media because his progressive ideological outlook pleases their sensibilities.
You don't trust Donald Trump to name an FBI director, even though it's within his purview to do so? Well, I don't trust Barack Obama to enter into faux treaties with a bunch of nations without Senate approval, or to unilaterally legalize millions of people without Congress.
I understand that you find those unilateral decisions morally comforting, but if process and norms matter, they should always matter. While there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, Democrats' newfound adoration of checks and balances simply isn't credible.
And once that trust has been eroded, it's difficult to regain. Most Americans aren't impressed by procedure. So why would they surrender power when they're certain you will abuse it again four years from now?
Commentary by David Harsanyi, a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.
©2017 National Review. Used with permission.
For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.