Some thoughts on today’s #January6thHearings: A tale of two very different halves for me - but both evoking a sense of dread and acute threat. Trump brought carnage. Unless he is held to account, he will bring a lot more, and the damage will be irreparable.
The first part centered on that December 18 meeting between Trump’s outside team and his White House lawyers: What an absolutely bizarre scene – nothing anyone would have accepted as remotely plausible, had it been presented in a movie or a novel. Trumpism as farce.
And then there were all these ludicrous conspiracists, extremist grifters, and unhinged rightwing activists echoing Trump’s call for a march on DC – what an utterly bizarre spectacle it all was, in so many ways the fitting crescendo to the Trump experience.
All of it would be supremely entertaining (and in the darkest, most voyeuristic way it kind of is) – were it not for the fact that the guy at the center of it all, Donald Trump, is still the leader of the American Right, having the support of nearly the entire Republican Party.
Some of this was so clownish and buffoonish, it could easily have the effect of making it all seem less serious, less dangerous than it actually was. “A coup, you say? Engineered by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, led by Donald Trump?!” Yes. Exactly.
Let’s never forget: There is no higher law of nature that says democracy can’t be brought down by a bunch of comical clowns and grifters – if they have enough support from people and institutions who decide to enable them, make common cause with them.
Always remember: Some of history’s most successful authoritarians were considered goons and buffoons by their contemporaries - until they became goons and buffoons in power. It’s a charade, until it’s not; they are ridiculous clowns, until they are not.
And when democracy’s gone, it’s gone – no matter how ridiculous its demise. #Jan6thHearings
Nothing even remotely funny about what happened after that bizarre Dec. 18 meeting, and Trump’s subsequent call for action: A devastating window in the mobilization of these fascistic, white supremacist militant groups that are trying to establish a culture of violent threat.
American carnage: The rise of far-right militancy and fascistic brutality, of vigilante violence and white supremacist terrorism, a culture of violent threat that’s jeopardizing the foundations of democracy. And it’s all rapidly moving towards the center of conservative politics.
Democracy depends on people feeling safe in the public square. If they don’t, because it’s ruled by intimidation and threats of violence, they won’t be able to participate as citizens. It’s what these extremists want: Rule and dominate through violence, coercion, and harassment.
This kind of fascistic, white supremacist violence is certainly not a new phenomenon: There’s not a moment in history when it wasn’t an important element in American life, and far-right extremist ideas and actors were always an important factor on the Right.
But that the Republican Party remains united behind a man who was so actively and clearly aligned with these fascistic extremists, that it has normalized and embraced them, particularly on the state and local level - that’s still cause for alarm.
One last though, on today’s witnesses: A former Trumpist who stormed the Capitol, and a former Oath Keeper. I’m fairly certain, considering their past affiliations, that their vision for the country doesn’t necessarily align with the idea of multiracial, pluralistic democracy.
They are no heroes. But it is very notable that they no longer support Donald Trump. They seem to have decided that, whatever else is going on, Trumpism is a bridge too far. That very much distinguishes them from Bill Barr, or Rusty Bowers, or Mike Pence.
I’m pretty sure the committee would not have presented them as witnesses if they hadn’t come to that realization: Supporting Trump is unacceptable. We should be expecting at least as much from elite Republicans as we do from these ordinary citizens. Democracy depends on it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It seems clear that one reason for the Biden White House’s tepid response to the all-out reactionary assault on democracy and civil rights has been a strong anti-activist sentiment. That’s deeply concerning. 1/
The common theme in the justifications emanating from Biden world (and prominent Biden/Obama alumni like David Axelrod and Jennifer Palmieri) is frustration with people and groups they refer to as “activists” – even downright disdain for their activism. 2/
The political / communications strategy here is not new: Delegitimize every criticism as just “activism” while insinuating that activism as irrational, unreasonable, fringe, unhelpful – that’s par for the course from a political establishment perspective. 3/
The author is actually right to think of the Proud Boys as “fathers, business owners and veterans.” That does not, however, mean that they are fine people, but that fascistic militancy is not just a fringe phenomenon, that it instead very much appeals to “regular folks.”
In fact, it’s a reminder that fascism’s key supporters always came from the middle of society, that the white supremacist terrorists who loved to don white hoods and burn crosses were often well-respected members of their communities - “reputable citizens,” so many of them.
And the fact that these people now aggressively appear at school board meetings should remind us that these far-right militants and white supremacists feel emboldened, that they are escalating their campaign to dominate the public square and establish a culture of violent threat.
On July 4, the New York Times published an essay by the president of the Ford Foundation. It’s an interesting window into the mindset of America’s ostensibly liberal elite: a superficially compelling, yet utterly unconvincing, inadequate, and severely misleading diagnosis. 1/
The essay comes in the wake of the Long Last Week of June which saw the Supreme Court escalating its frontal assault on the civil rights order, and more generally in the context of a rapidly accelerating reactionary counter-mobilization against American democracy. 2/
It’s given the most prestigious platform: In the paper of record, on Independence Day, a reflection on the state of the American project, and a passionate plea to “step away from the extremes” and “renew our fidelity to the values that bind us.” 3/
This is right. And one additional reason why any variation of “We just need to be nicer to white conservative Christians” is so misleading is that the entire mainstream political discourse is already built around trying to appease these people - clearly without success.
It’s most obvious in the way that white Christian conservatives are coded as “regular folks,” in the pervasive assumption of a white conservative “normal” that still governs the American political and cultural discourse.
It’s also apparent in how we’re always asked to presume innocence for white conservative Christians. The political discourse is shaped by the paradigm of white innocence: Whatever animates white people’s extremism, it must not be racism and they can’t be blamed for their actions.
In many ways, DeSantis embodies Trumpism as a political project and promise: He is all in on mobilizing the coercive power of the state for the purpose of imposing a white nationalist order on the country, and on punishing those who dare to deviate.
He is also, more specifically, mobilizing the state against any kind of corporate dissent, which is fully in line with the Right’s entirely instrumental and opportunistic attitude towards ideas of “free enterprise” and “small government,” but few are so aggressive about it.
DeSantism is entirely fueled by white reactionary social and cultural grievances, strongly opposed to multiracial, pluralistic democracy, fully on board with the Big Lie about the 2020 election. It’s Trumpism without Trump. There is nothing “moderate” about it.
Mainstream media outlets like the NYT are pushing the idea that “the Left” is an acute threat just as Republican-led states and the reactionary justices on the Supreme Court are escalating their assault on democracy and the civil rights order. That’s not a coincidence.
Considering that we have just been through the Long Last Week of June in which a rogue Supreme Court left no doubt that it functions as the spearhead of a reactionary political project, one might think we’d get a break from this kind of “both sides” pseudo-journalism.
What we are getting instead, however, is the opposite: A concerted doubling down on the established ideas and tropes of “neutrality” journalism – all based on a paradigm that defines “neutrality” as keeping equidistance from either side, basically mistaking it for objectivity.