I would feel more sympathy for Bowers if he hadn’t basically nullified his powerful testimony yesterday by immediately telling a journalist he’d totally vote for Trump again 2024.
Prepare for this to be a Trump ad in 2024 should he run. “If January 6 was such a big deal, then why did one of the supposed critics and victims of it say he’d vote for Trump again?”
GOP strategists are smart enough to know that the voters they need to keep on board are not the ultra-MAGA type who think Jan 6 was awesome, but the generally apolitical but "patriotic" folks who vote on gas prices or inflation, & need permission to vote for the coup guy again.
A good number of potential Trump voters will be people who, if they watch the footage of Jan 6, will find it disturbing, disqualifying even. The GOP needs to set up a permission structure that says "your concerns are understandable, but trust us, this won't happen again."
Nothing says "trust us, this won't happen again" more forcefully than having the vast majority of Republicans who testified before the Jan 6 Commission (like Bowers, Raffensperger, Sterling, etc.) endorse Trump in 2024, which I fully expect they will if he runs.
Bowers' seeming reverence for the Constitution is, ironically, the very thing that enables him to absolve his party (and his 2024 Trump-voting self) of any responsibility. "The divine will sort it out, fallible men can only do so much."
A hallmark feature of modern conservatism is its profoundly anti-sociological, anti-structural, and hyper-individualistic understanding of historical causality. History is made by individuals, not movements or broader social forces. Individual virtue, a la Rusty, will win out.
No need to talk about the county and state level GOP officials with ties to white nationalists and far right militias. No need to talk about the far right media ecosystem that inspires stochastic terrorists and acts of vigilante intimidation like Bowers' family experienced.
Another hallmark feature of modern conservatism is its hyperbolic obsession with "the dangerous left that wants to destroy America as we know it." This also gives people like Bowers reason to minimize or explain away what Trump and his movement did to him, because "the left..."
Instead of structural understandings of historical causality, what the political culture of the US Right offers are a range of conspiracy theories. "The Hollywood elites" or "Soros" or "the liberal media" want you to care about Jan 6, but that's because they're out to get you.
Nothing would give more credence to these Jan 6 minimizing mechanisms on the right than having a parade of testimonials from Republicans who testified before the Jan 6 Commission endorse Trump or a Trump-approved candidate.
Here it is, the 2024 messaging already in place. "Far from being a party that empowered & enabled a coup plotter, the GOP is filled with Trump-supporting politicians who quietly did their jobs in a virtuous manner. Don't worry, you can keep voting for us."
Starting with Brown v. Board in the 1950s and continuing up through Roe, the conservative movement drew much energy from the idea that an overreaching SCOTUS was transforming the US into something any good "traditionalist, Christian patriot" would not want....
...a multi-racial society that benefitted from diversity, a secular society that valued religious pluralism, a society committed to gender equality, a society that protected the rights of LGBTQ citizens. Not all conservatives opposed all of these things, but most opposed some.
Today's decision is, in many ways, one culminating moment for that 50+ year conservative movement that knew all along that it spoke for only a small and shrinking fraction of the population. That's why they focused so intently on capturing the SCOTUS to advance their goals.
Working up a TV pilot about a retired baseball star who develops a new career tracking down and arresting people who make money impersonating professional athletes online. It'll be called "The Catfish Hunter."
I'll be the first to admit, that one is a stretch.
Might work better as a screwball comedy now that I think of it.
Pat Buchanan’s take on the David Duke phenomenon was, shall we say, interesting. Oregonian, 23 October 1991.
"Duke pledges to vote against any new tax increase. He wants to toss the able bodied off welfare, stop payments to drug users and freeze benefits to welfare mothers who keep having children. He favors tougher penalties for crime and an end to....all reverse discrimination..."
"[Duke] calls for freedom of choice for parents in sending children to public schools...He opposes gun control, wants the US to halt illegal immigration and would slash foreign aid. The national press calls these positions 'code words' for racism, but..."
Update. A folder of Huss's credit card statements from the late 90s (when he was about 80 yrs old) reveal 3 major expenditures: 1) payments to MLMs, 2) hundreds of dollars to the John Birch Society for books and magazine subscriptions and 3) massive late fees & finance charges.
Chuckled aloud when I read this sentence about “eminent progressive historian” Gordon Wood in a 2011 book by an Ivy League educated conservative whose name you might recognize…
It’s this guy. The entire book is right wing foundersplaining to the Harvard law review editor President who supposedly reviles the Constitution.
One notable feature of the book is that he uses adjectives like “liberal,” “leftist,” or “progressive” to identify writers he disagrees with, and simply names (or gives institutional affiliations for) most of the conservatives he agrees with.