Imagine if this was a Muslim protest that turned into a riot, which masked a highly organized and well-prepared group of terrorists who successfully infiltrated the Capital building with intent to take hostages, while insiders hindered police and national guard deployment.
All you have to do in the previous tweet is change "Muslim" to "Trumpist" and this is exactly what actually happened.
Where is the outrage?
This is in many ways worse than 9/11. Far less dead people and in some ways less dramatic. But 9/11 never put our actual functioning government in danger.
And this being done by domestic terrorists ought to be more scary, not less, than
As a whole, our culture is primed to react, or even overreact, to attacks we perceive as coming form "outsiders". But we are dumbstruck when those same attacks come from within.
This may be an inbuilt thing in the human species. Tribal thinking.
The answer is that Trumpists can not be thought of as part of our tribe.
I have argued strongly in the past that the only way we can survive as a nation is if we repair national unity between the left and the right.
I stand by that idea.
But the limit of that tolerance must be that we reject those who are literally trying to destroy our nation.
I have also argued in the past that cultural norms are what controls our culture. Racism is contained as long as society as a whole agrees that it is taboo. It is not contained when we don't agree.
Similarly this is how Trumpism must be contained.
So we have two big challenges related to this. To put this into tribalist terms, we need to move our culture to a place where:
1. black people are uniformly regarded as "us".
2. Trumpists are uniformly regarded as "them".
(And these two challenges are not unrelated.)
And both of these things involve changing our mythology about the founding of our nation, the building of that nation, what it represents, and who it serves.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Who remembers "Stand back and stand by" back in September? Probably most of us, and it has come up a few times in recent discussions.
But I'm curious if there's not a deeper more literal connection: is there a time where he told his supporters to no longer stand by?
So I note that in his January 6th speech there were several uses of the world "stand" that could be construed as signals, directly updating his previous "stand by" order.
This implied threat has gotten a lot of attention for the treat: " And Mike Pence, I hope you're going to STAND UP for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country."
Correct me if I'm wrong. If Congress tries it's one 25th amendment maneuver separate from the executive branch, as the amendment allows, they'd have to pass a law, which would have to go before the President, be vetoed, then pass both houses again by 2/3rd majority.
Yes?
And then, having changed the law, would need to follow the process they just legislated.
That all seems more implausible than impeachment.
Also it'd be nice if they wrote a law that wasn't full of holes for exploitation and abuse by future corrupt members of Congress.
At this point Mike pence should already have assessed if it's even possible for him to put together a 25th amendment removal. And he will have already contacted members of Congress to let them know what's happening either way.
Likewise if there's really going to be an impeachment then the house will have already figured out which draft they're going to use and gotten it into a informal committee ready for committee approval.
In other words the reality of what is about to happen has already been decided, and all we are seeing publicly is posturing.