REPUBLICAN REJECTION OF THE JANUARY 6 COMMISSION: IS THIS WORSE THAN MEETS THE EYE?

Why would President Joe Biden say on Memorial Day that “Democracy itself is in peril?” No modern president has issued a comparable warning.

Military veteran and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a one-time Republican Senator from Nebraska, suggested a military coup could occur in America when he said, “The real threat is internal.” He added that America’s future is “in jeopardy.” What are Biden and Hagel worried about? What are they telling us?

Are they afraid one of our major political parties – the Republican Party – has become the anti-democracy party?

If not Treason, What?

On January 6, hundreds of mostly white people stormed the U.S. Capitol. They hoisted the Confederate flag, constructed a hangman’s noose, and overcame Capitol police with guns, knives, bear spray, clubs, and

poles. They took over both congressional chambers and chanted things like “Hang Mike Pence” and “Kill Nancy Pelosi.” Their invasion ultimately caused five deaths.

For more than four hours, the mob disrupted

congressional certification of Electoral College votes. Securing the Capitol took that amount of time. In all American history, the United States Capitol building had never been taken over by domestic invaders and only once –during the War of 1812 – by foreigners.

Though many in the crowd wore Trump

clothing and carried Trump signs, some in the right wing media claimed the insurgents were actually Black Lives Matter and Antifa members masquerading as Trump supporters. Some suspect

Republican members of Congress may have helped organize the invasion or at least enabled it.

 

Who’s Complicit?

House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and the ranking

Republican on that committee, New York’s John Katko, drafted bipartisan legislation that would have created an independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy regularly consulted Katko during that process and Thompson gave Katko all he asked for in the negotiations. Still, McCarthy withdrew his support and urged that Republicans vote against the measure. Only 35 GOP members ended up voting with Democrats when the measure passed the House.

In the Senate, Republicans launched a filibuster, meaning the legislation needed 60 votes. Just seven Republicans joined 50 Democrats in voting yes, so the measure failed.

               

Why would 43 of the 50 Republican senators not

want answers to the questions surrounding the insurrection? Who organized it, for example? Why were the invaders determined to overthrow the democratic process by violent means? What were Republican senators afraid of? Why would they not support bipartisan legislation aimed at getting the facts about such an unprecedented domestic attack on the American Capitol?  Something is clearly afloat.

One obvious answer lies in the control Donald Trump still exerts over the base of the Republican

Party. In controlling that base, he controls members of Congress it elects. “He has a grip over politicians because he has a grip over voters,” says Carol Leonnig, author of Zero Fail: The Rise and

Fall of the Secret Service. These elected officials want to maintain their offices  and the benefits that go with serving the interests of movement conservatism. An interlocking set of institutions and alliances wins elections by stoking cultural and racial anxiety while using its power in pushing an elitist economic agenda, as  Paul Krugman writes in Arguing with Zombies. Since Republicans want to regain control of the House and Senate, they know they can’t do so without the white lemming that makes up the Republican base.

In the wake of the GOP’s rejection of the January 6

commission measure, former Trump national security adviser Michal Flynn, once a three-star general in the U.S. Army, told a QAnon conference a military coup “should happen” in the United States. Flynn referred to events in Myanmar, where the military overthrew a democratically elected government on the basis of unproven allegations of voter fraud. Other similarly disturbing statements from Trump supporters haven’t gotten the attention Flynn got, but it appears treasonous comments are becoming common place among Republicans and Trump supporters.

 

So What’s the Bargain?

Lyndon Johnson, the nation’s 36^th president, once said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 as the

champion of the little guy. His only significant legislative achievement, however, was a tax cut for the rich that ripped a hole in the social safety net his blue-collar supporters need. So, what do those supporters get out of the deal? Mostly, it seems, what President Johnson told us – a chance to look down on someone.      

Trump no longer pretends he’s going to make life better for working class whites in his base. They get xenophobic diatribes and racist venom directed at blacks, browns, and Asians but not much else. In the final analysis, Trump gives them someone they can look down on. Meantime, with the support of that base, the Republican Party has become the anti-democracy party. It seeks to deprive all but white people of the benefits of democracy. That’s the Faustian bargain. So they can look down on blacks, browns, Asians, and other out groups, Trump supporters discard democracy, with the complicity of their leaders.

So, we ask again – what do Biden and Hagel know? If we ignore the clear and present danger this “deal,” this “bargain” Trump’s supporters and GOP leaders have struck, we could all lose.  

                            

THE GEORGE FLOYD VERDICT: THREE VIEWS AMDIST SETTLING DUST

 

Anyone regularly perusing this space knows we comment on current events, usually as

quickly as possible. We’re not a news service, however, so sometimes we think it best we let time pass between a significant happening and having our say. That’s the case with the guilty verdicts in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd.  On April 20 a jury pronounced Chauvin guilty on all three charges against him. We decided we should let the dust settle, so we proceeded with our April 22 post on Major League Baseball’s decision to pull its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive voting law.

Now, the time has come for our thoughts on the verdict. The inherently personal character of our reactions merits speaking independently:

Henry: Sighs of Relief/Hope/Grief

This experience felt like batting practice for a baseball game in which the ball has been put on a

tee or watching a mystery with what seems an obvious ending. No doubt about the plot existed. A video showed who did it and how. Everything was teed up for an inevitable conclusion. Still, though the images had circulated around the globe for a year, doubt about our criminal justice system and white resistance to letting go of systemic and individual racism made me wonder if the result still might mimic so many before – “not guilty” said the jury.

When I heard the verdict on the first charge I breathed a sigh of relief. Wow, we have a conviction! Upon hearing the second, I felt a spark of hope. Maybe, just maybe, we now live in a different world.  After the third, however, grief for the Floyd family and those who came before overtook me. Neither George nor the others were coming back.

Then my mind turned to the pragmatic.  Will law enforcement organizations, particularly police unions, double down and fight police reform efforts?  Or will the good officers become the engine for change the nation needs? That’s in the hat, I decided. Though I have hope, I’m not optimistic. I still hear the wails of the many who couldn’t breathe, but perhaps now we can hear their voices.

Woodson: The Wind Is at Our Backs

Black Lives Matter members, supporters, and sympathizers believe Chauvin’s conviction

represents hope that at last African Americans will be policed as Caucasians are. They believe cries for equality in policing are gaining traction and the wind is at the movement’s back. They believe, as echoed by the biblical prophet Isaiah, “Justice will one day roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”. They are inspired to make “good trouble”.

Others believe the verdict was unjust; that it resulted from jurors’ fears of rioting. They fear that people of color will continue demanding to be policed as their white counterparts, which in their opinion is unreasonable, given their view of the criminality of black and brown people. For them Chauvin’s conviction is a threat to White Supremacy, and something should be done to squelch the fervency of demands for changes.

Like South Carolina’s Democratic Senator Benjamin “Pitchfork” Tillman, who in 1901

objected to President Roosevelt inviting the first African American, Booker T. Washington, to dine at the White House, they fear the conviction will unleash a torrent of demands for rights that are for whites only. Tillman said that the expectations growing out of a single African American having dinner at the White House meant that “we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back in their places”. Today, the Tillmans of the country may be outnumbered.  The January 6^th insurrection, the rash of anti-voting rights laws, and continuing police killings of African Americans, suggest a number of Tillmans remain. 

I join the former group. Our numbers are growing as young Caucasians become aware of racial discrimination in policing. With the shifting demographics in the country, the fight continues with the wind at our backs!

Rob: The Playbook Fails

I watched the judge read the verdicts and

experienced some of the same thoughts and emotions  as my brother bloggers. I took in the cable news commentary (well, at least MSNBC and CNN). MSNBC’s Joy Reid expressed an observation about what happened in the courtroom that rang truest. I wish I could claim it as original with me, but it’s not, so I’ll give her credit. It best represents my thoughts about the impact of the verdicts.

Having practiced law for 34 years, mostly doing

litigation, and having tried dozens of cases myself, I never fault a lawyer for doing the best he or she can for their client. Every defendant enjoys the right to a vigorous defense by competent counsel.

Chauvin’s lawyer did what he could with what he had. He trotted out the defense police officers accused of killing black people usually offer – put the victim on trial, try showing the officer’s fear of the black suspect, blame the death or injury on a confluence of circumstances that exonerate the officer. The defense claimed George Floyd’s drug use and medical condition killed him, not Chauvin. Floyd, in the defense’s telling, could have risen from the pavement and overwhelmed the officers, the reason they kept holding him down. The nearby, supposedly menacing, crowd posed a threat that made aiding Mr. Floyd imprudent, even after he couldn’t breathe.

Supposedly menacing crowd witnessing death of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin

Beginning with the Rodney King case in 1992, we’ve often seen these tactics employed in trials of police officers accused of killing unarmed black people. Many times they worked, resulting in

acquittals by jurors reluctant to find against police officers.  The playbook failed this time, perhaps demonstrating it’s not infallible. Maybe it’s out of date. I think that’s potentially the verdict’s long-term significance.