It will matter greatly what the news media calls the events of January 6 going forward.
Do we have a coup? A putsch? An insurrection? The storming of the Capitol? Trumpist terrorism? Will there be a pithy shorthand, and if so, will it be reasonably accurate and descriptive?
As a historian, what watching the attack unfold on television brought home to me is once again something basic but often forgotten in the mythologizations of public remembrance:
The people who did this are extremely normal. Despite their wild conspiracies.
There are millions like them. Millions who approve, millions who don't approve but don't not approve enough to care, millions who see this assault on democracy and order as something noble.
They will not go away.
If there is no reckoning, this will get worse.
If there is a reckoning, it may well get worse, too, I'm not denying that.
But it's past time to stop worrying about the political implications of trying and sentencing those who committed these seditious acts. Up to and including their presidential instigator.
The American republic is teetering on an edge. Now is the time to acknowledge that. Now is the time to stop attempting to paper over the Grand Canyon from one side only.
Things have long been broken.
But yesterday a final facade fell down.
If that signal isn't heard, if all the Biden administration has to offer in response is feeble efforts at reconciliation never meaningfully reciprocated, American democracy may well be done within our lifetimes.
I don't say this lightly. I know all about the problems of prediction. But the potential dangers of trying to sweep this under a rug of national unity are grave and real.
There is no coming back from this. There is only moving forward, and there's a choice to be made about the direction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
H/t to @manwithoutatan for pointing out the existence of this execrable piece of Confederate apologia plus random Lee "facts" of questionable truth value to me.
Normalize reading articles, not just headlines. From the NYT piece:
"I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet."
The main point AOC is making in the New York Times is about *how* to run a campaign, not *what* the message should be.
She's not shy about pushing her progressive brand of politics, but if that's your main takeaway from the criticism, you're misreading the interview.
"If you’re not door-knocking, if you’re not on the internet, if your main points of reliance are TV and mail, then you’re not running a campaign on all cylinders. I just don’t see how anyone could be making ideological claims when they didn’t run a full-fledged campaign."
Newt Gingrich claiming the election was stolen without evidence is major Newt Gingrich writing a dissertation about the Congo without ever going there energy.
"There is no evidence in the text that he traveled either to Belgium or to the Congo, and he seems not to have interviewed any of the principal actors, Belgian or Congolese, even though the dissertation was written only a handful of years after the departure of the Belgians […]"
People keep finding new angles in these concession speeches.
Here's one: when George H. Bush concedes, his supporters clap. When John McCain concedes, his supporters boo.
I'm not going to pretend that once there was a great era of civility and we have sadly left it. Evoking the need for civility is always also a strategy of power.
But I did find this contrast striking.
I became interested in this small data point. How did other crowds react to concessions?
Losers in presidential elections started formally conceding around the turn of the 20th century. William Jennings Bryan's telegram to McKinley in 1896 started that trend.