A New Year, A Capitol Riot
The whole protest/riot/insurrection at the U.S. capitol this Wednesday suggests the 21st year of the 21st century could outdo its rather awful predecessor.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, though. It could be better, right?
Riiiiiight, as Dr. Evil eloquently stated.
Nine days down, 356 to go….
Keeping track of all the news is a colossal undertaking. The comedian Gus Johnson (from Stevens Point, representing the Badger State) encapsulates the (futile?) effort in a bite sized sketch.
President Trump pressuring Georgian election officials in a private call to ‘find 11,780 votes’ last Saturday?
Could’ve sworn I read about it in a book.
The two runoff elections in Georgia to determine the control of the Senate this past Monday?
Was that five days ago?
Anyways, here are my thoughts on Wednesday’s incident.
First, some background. Polling has documented that a substantial number of Republicans doubt the result of the 2020 presidential election. The November 6th to 9th Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 70% of Republicans didn’t think it was ‘free and fair.’ Reuters conducted a poll from November 13th to 17th which found that 52% of Republicans believed President Trump actually won a ‘rigged’ election. By December 10th, Quinnipiac University’s poll uncovered that 77% of Republicans believe that there was ‘widespread voter fraud.’
The president and his campaign have made countless lawsuits against various states and their election laws, alleging fraud, irregularities and other problems. There have been hearings in state capitols all over the country. Almost all of the lawsuits have been rejected by the courts and some Trump appointed judges. The hearings have lead to no changes in states certification.
The “Save America” rally on January 6th was the final stand for the Trump campaign and the culmination of Mr. Trump meetings with state lawmakers and federal Representatives to challenge the Electoral College’s vote count. Information on the exact schedule is hard to come by, but Austin ABC affiliate KVUE has a pretty good outline of what was supposed to happen.
It attracted thousands of the Trump faithful. Only a few hundred entered the Capitol.
The president, his son former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani and other allies spoke at the rally.
There’s no question that Mr. Trump’s constant tweeting about fraud since the election led to some of his more radical supporters storming the capital. Constantly talking about rigging, theft and being the rightful winner is incendiary and he should’ve known a potential outcomes of such rhetoric could be what we saw on Wednesday.
However, many headlines arguing he wanted insurrection or his speech at the rally explicitly encouraged violence are downright false. Although he repeated his vague and often false claims of voter fraud before the riot/insurrection, he used the phases ‘walk to the Capitol’ and ‘peacefully and patriotically protest’ which don’t encourage violence. He told the protestors to ‘go home, go in peace and we have to have law and order’ in a now deleted Twitter video the day of the riot. The day after, he condemned the riot again, vowing those involved would be prosecuted and finally conceded that he won’t be serving a second term.
Mr. Giuliani was more combative at the rally, calling for ‘trial by combat,’ referencing the Germanic ritual, but that was referring to pitting the reputations of himself and the president against Mr. Biden and the Democrats, so it’s disingenuous to claim he referred to actual violence. The next day, he also denounced the riot on Twitter.
Facebook’s ban of two weeks is somewhat understandable, if harsh. While Mr. Trump doesn’t encourage violence explicitly, he seems unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the implicit nudges that his rhetoric suggests. Allowing the transition from his administration to Mr. Biden’s for the next two weeks without late night tweeting is probably for the best.
Twitter’s permanent ban is poorly justified and an over-reaction. How does Mr. Trump saying that his voters ‘will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form’ along with announcing that he will not attend the inauguration could lead to future violence? Honestly, him not attending the inauguration is the best choice at this point. Vice President Mike Pence plans to do so, and Mr. Biden is ‘honored’ to have him.
Twitter chooses to interpret Mr. Trump’s absence the opposite way, arguing that the inauguration now would be an attack target of more radical Trumpers since he won’t be there. If you really feel that’s the case, follow Facebook’s lead and block him for the next two weeks, not forever.
Furthermore, why wouldn’t Mr. Trump support, empower and shield those who believe he won the election? It’s one thing to treat his non-violent followers and voters with respect. It’s another to treat the violent ones that way. Based on both the statements of Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani, they don’t plan on giving the rioters a pass, so this is a sleight of hand by Twitter.
Twitter allows glorification of violence/questionable Tweets from other sources. Take Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. On November 3rd, he tweeted “Palestine will be free, while the fake Zionist regime will perish.” Referring to Israel as a fake Zionist regime that will perish encourages violence, does it not? There’s plenty of additional examples. Using Twitter’s logic of reading tweets in their broader context, look at the allegations of Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism. Shouldn’t the ayatollah’s account be subjected to the same standard as Mr. Trump’s?
The reason why so many Republicans believe in the ‘stolen election’ myth is because they are wary from four years of constant attacks and political impeachment. As I wrote on November 22nd,
“We’ve become a nation of conspiracy theories and wild, baseless attacks. The Republicans portray the Democrats as proponents of massive voter fraud and Dominion voting machines that change votes due to ties to Latin American dictators. The Democrats never stopped babbling about Russian collusion and comparing the Trump administration to the Third Reich.”
Many Republicans contend that the Democrats and their allies haven’t been punished for their attack and persecution of President Trump and the MAGA movement. Many of those in the media denouncing the Capitol siege gave the Democrats a pass for the pass several years. Facebook and Twitter banning President Trump for further fear of violence further hardens feelings and makes division even riper.
Regardless of the veracity of the election rigging claims, it’s an impediment to uniting the country, as President-elect Joe Biden has signaled he wants to do.
As political pundit Bill O’Reilly suggested on December 10th, there should be a special counsel to investigate voter fraud allegations. Mr. O’Reilly directed his comment to then Attorney General Bill Barr, who has since resigned from his post.
This is an opportunity for Mr. Biden and the Democrats. They clearly and consistently assert that they won the election. For the record, I believe they did, and as FiveThirtyEight editor Nate Silver wrote, it wasn’t particularly close. It wasn’t a blowout either, but nothing like the 1960 or 2000 presidential elections.
With so much misinformation and conspiracy theories out there, Mr. Biden’s victory has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, hitting as hard and as frequent as the rumors and disinformation. An easy to understand, fact based and honest ‘investigation’ done by a Republican or even a hardcore Trumper would be an olive branch to the other side, reveal certain abuses, correct irregular procedures and could (indirectly) pay for itself, as Mr. Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation did. It would shatter the ‘stolen election’ myth, which thrives as most myths do because there hasn’t been an objective repudiation.
Of course, some radicals will continue in their disbelief. But a sizeable group, perhaps a majority of Republicans and many Independents would be swayed, cementing Mr. Biden’s legitimacy and helping claim our culture of conspiracy back to one of facts and reason.
As for impeaching the president a second time, attorney and George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley has compelling points on why that’s a bad idea.
Finally, journalist Caitlin Johnstone commented about using of the word ‘coup’ to describe Wednesday’s riot. It’s worth a read and may make you think about America’s activities abroad. Having studied history, particularly of Latin America, in college and beyond, the American government has done quite a few coups around the world, especially during the Cold War. The CIA’s involvement in the ouster of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 comes to mind.
She also has some thoughts on the backlash towards the riot, echoing some of my thoughts.
There you have it. The Primacy Of Politics take on what happened.
A final note: much like air, we appreciate seamless transfers of power the most when we don’t have them.
Agree?