Some thoughts on last night’s #January6thHearing: It’s always striking to be reminded of how leading GOP politicians like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy publicly acknowledged Trump’s culpability immediately after the attack. And look where the Republican Party is now.
It obviously wasn’t enough for them to actually impeach or break with Trump in any meaningful way. But there was a brief moment of uncertainty, of Republican leaders and conservative elites being rattled, immediately after January 6. So, what happened?
Republicans quickly rallied behind Trump: They first acquitted him, then they started obstructing every attempt to hold him accountable, and now many are running on his Big Lie. The few who broke with Trump have been marginalized, ostracized.
Republicans did not come to see January 6 as the end of the line, the outrageous conclusion of the Trumpian experiment – they have come to see it as a blueprint: Never concede an election, never accept defeat at the hands of what they see as a fundamentally “Un-American” enemy.
Was there a viable alternative path immediately after January 6? Was that road not taken ever as realistically an option as the statements by McConnell and McCarthy may suggest, at least at first sight? I’m skeptical. The Republican Party has been on this path for a long time.
I have no doubt that many Republicans, like McConnell himself, thought – and probably still think – that Trump is a despicable person, that he never should have summoned a mob to attack the Capitol. But all the reasons why they initially united behind him in 2016 still apply.
They may consider Trump crass, just as they probably aren’t super comfortable with extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene or with how close the Republican Party has gotten to fascistic militants like the Proud Boys who increasingly act like the party’s paramilitary arm.
But they certainly don’t consider any of that a dealbreaker. And that’s not just because they are opportunistic, cynical, and power-hungry – although they are all that too, as they understand they can’t win without the base, and the base loves Trump / Trumpism.
They also understand that, as crass or radical or outrageous as January 6 may have been, they are ultimately pursuing the same political project as Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and all the other extremists – upholding a traditional order of white Christian elite rule.
Nothing Trump has ever done has betrayed this project or the “Higher Truth” of conservative politics: That only white conservatives – and the party that represents them – are entitled to rule in America, that Democratic governance is fundamentally illegitimate.
And so the permission structure of conservative politics remained fully intact and quickly allowed for a realignment / re-uniting behind Trump: Anything is justified to fight back against the supposed onslaught from a radically “Un-American,” extremist “Left.”
That’s how they’re giving themselves permission to embrace whatever radical measures are deemed necessary to defeat this “Un-American” enemy. If the nation is under acute threat, nothing is beyond the pale to defend it. Democracy? The rule of law? Who cares!
This fundamental logic of conservative politics was always likely to drown out everything else after a moment of shock in the wake of January 6 – because Trump himself was never the cause and always a result of this kind of “Higher Truth” politics, of this permission structure.
And so here we are, and nothing the #January6thHearings have revealed about Trump’s central role in a multi-layered, multi-month scheme to nullify the election and prevent the transfer of power, to abolish democracy and constitutional government, can get Republicans to split.
Addendum: It’s really important to acknowledge that such moments of brief uncertainty and crisis almost always result in a further radicalization of the Republican Party and the Right in general - they almost never lead to caution or a strengthening of moderate voices.
A famous example was the 2012 election that shook conservatives to the core. There were voices calling for moderation in the immediate aftermath - remember the RNC “Autopsy.” But they were quickly drowned out; instead, the GOP doubled down, accelerated the radicalization.
When the Right is at a crossroads, they choose the path of radicalization, even when - like in 2012 - it’s not at all clear that’s a reasonable choice from a purely electoral standpoint, even when - like in the case of the GOP on the West Coast - it’s basically electoral suicide.
I think the key factor that helps explain this dynamic is ideology: There are ideological factors at play that severely restrict and limit the realm of possibility and opportunism for the Right and significantly privilege the more radical over the more restraint forces.
Within the confines of a worldview that sees “Us” (conservative white Christians) as the sole proponents of “real America” and “Them” (Democrats, liberals, “The Left”) as a fundamentally illegitimate, “Un-American” threat, it’s hard to justify compromise and restraint.
Conversely, every crisis situation only heightens the sense of being under siege that’s underlying the Right’s anti-democratic radicalization, it legitimizes and amplifies calls to hit harder, more aggressively. There’s always permission to escalate, hardly ever to pull back.
That dynamic shaped the Right after January 6 - it’s not the only factor, but an crucial one. And it not only explains past instances of radicalization in moments when it looked like there could have been an alternative path - it should also shape our expectations going forward.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
