Excellent, as always. But this: "For every bearded miscreant wearing a sweatshirt celebrating the Holocaust in that crowd, there were a dozen firefighters, cops, masonry workers, and business owners." I think you're still "working-class"ing the seditionists. Don't forget the real estate brokers, local politicians, regional restaurant chain owners. I think this is as much a "local gentry" uprising as a working class one.
One of the new realities of this era, that 1/6 has illuminated, is that the Fringe is the Center of the Right—it's all collapsed. Of course this didn't happen suddenly on Wednesday, it has been built over decades of a corporate media ecosystem of Fox and talk radio that has been massively accelerated by social media. So it's been possible, at least since the entry of Trump on scene with the Birther conspiracy, to not just to subsist in our society's edges despite being brainwashed, but to be a successful, prosperous local gentry who has swallowed a whole menu of political and social conspiracy (built on top of racism/white supremacy and conservative class superiority) by a self-reinforcing apparatus of the President, other GOPers, their right-wing media, regurgitated hourly by through millions of interactions with coworkers, family members and friends IRL and on Facebook. This sprawling conspiracy has become the heart and "base" of the party since Trump took over, and at least until the end of last week it was broadly acceptable to hold and publicly espouse crazy lies for the very reason that it was the platform of one of the two major parties. The degree to which this mass delusion can be drained from our society is the degree to which there now arrive negative social, professional, financial and political consequences to holding these views and supporting the politicians and media outlets that advance them—that the insanity is actively pushed back beyond the boundary of permissibility, so that if and when we need to speak of a "fringe" we can actually be referring to a small outlier minority of brain melted lost souls who really can do nothing more than LARP, rather a centralized, institutional cult that has embraced fascist methods of violence and actually undertaken an insurrection.
Re: the "fringe is the center of the right" -- Polling data shows surprising (to me, perhaps shouldn't have been) levels of support for the raid on the Capitol among self-identified Republicans. It's close to 50%.
The number of Republicans who blame Biden for the raid on the Capitol is also about 50%.
If it's that YouGov poll, I saw that, which is of course extremely troubling. I think that could very likely shift, let's see some other data come in this week. But then there's always the problem of whether people provide the responses that they think they are supposed to say out loud, vs. what they actually think.
I was going to ban you because you're not adding anything of value to this comment section, but actually, you're doing great sweetie, by all means keep going
Thanks Patrick! Your embrace of your paternalistic fascism is now complete. You can rule over your little fiefdom here, complete with sycophant minions, to your heart's content.
Maybe throw in a few more non-Euro-centric historical lessons or you might just come across as another disgruntled white guy.
Ya know I was almost hesitant to post my comment because I wasn't sure I had sufficiently articulated my notions about online Koolaid-chugging, but then here you come along. Brilliant! [Chef's Kiss Emoji]! I'm only disappointed you didn't mention Vince Foster.
I think you can safely call them all non-bourgeoisie. Many of whom want to be in that class of society society but are laughed at or worse, exploited by the elites.
It's wild how broad the appeal of this movement is. From the Q lords in congress to minimum wage workers, seems anyone can become radicalized by this. I mean hell I agree with some of what they're saying (the politicians aren't working for us part, not the trump as god emperor part). Think the election showed how many people can or could be swayed by this rhetoric, so the wakeup call should have happened ohhhh...a couple years ago at this point.
Besides magats on 4chan no, but I'm going to believe you're smart enough to know the context with which that was written. The people at that rally believed in Trump above god and country. Trump is the capstone of their worship pyramid, and that is an awful truth to consider.
I am going to have to believe that you are a little delusional if you actually believe that "The people at that rally believed in Trump above god and country."
Many would appreciate a second conversation with Mike Duncan regarding the rise of fascism in the United States, counter-revolution, increase in actual leftism in terms of anarchism, and the failures of centrist politics (worsening of material conditions, failure to control COVID, lack of access to healthcare) that is moving the United States towards collapse, transformation, dissolution, or reform.
I'd like to second this request. I've shared that early-Covid April episode with a few folks in the last couple days, and would love to listen to and then share an episode dedicated to the understanding and contextualizing the political events of the last few months.
I would have never believed that such a privileged group of people could be so misled to believe that they are oppressed and persecuted in any way. The way most white Americans characterize their situation in this country is just mesmerizing. Watching people with two cars, 3000+ sf houses, and fridges full of food, constantly complaining about how they are “exploited, infringed on their rights and persecuted” by the “tyrannical government” leaves me constantly in shocking aw.
Exactly right. The South in many ways won the Civil War by winning the post-war battle: “Lost Cause,” Jim Crow, decimating Reconstruction. We all naturally want to move on after a traumatic event, but history shows that making a good, safe world requires vigilance, never stopping the hard work of constant push back against fanaticism. First order here, I think: impeach (so Trump can’t be on 2024 ballot), then figure out how much his enablers, especially in Congress, helped egg on, direct, and assist. Then prosecute them—not just impeach. Actual criminal trials, prison. Make it clear there are no safe harbors for sedition, that no one gets a free pass.
Thanks for the insight. Agree with your analysis. Trump should be impeached ASAP. What are your thoughts on BLM and ANTIFA riots in cities around the United States that preceded the biggie in DC?
1) I think the events over the summer - driven as much or more by the extremely aggressive police response than the actions of protesters themselves - have helped make violence a more openly acceptable thing in American politics.
2) There's an enormous difference between the protests over the summer and an attempt at overturning the results of a democratic election, aimed at legislators in the course of their duties, driven by the sitting president and a faction of elected officials who sought to benefit politically from the actions of the mob.
Pat, you really gotta put your comments behind a paywall.
No one deserves blue lives matter conspiracy theorists shitting up their comment threads. God bless you for engaging but come on, you know they're not here to learn about why they're wrong. They're here to put up chaff and trigger the libs.
Great article as always. Loved your roman history posts back in the old deadspin days.
I believe your analysis is fundamentally flawed. Regardless of cause, the summer riots targeted small businesses and first responders. As you stated, many of those classes are among the people who stormed the Capitol.
The only substantial difference I see if that one group assaulted local power, the other, national power.
The summer protests were led by people who are watching police murder Black people, and in direct response to that police brutality. The insurrection was led by a bunch of people who are in no way oppressed, and as a direct response to a campaign of misinformation lies. The goal of the summer protests was societal, structural change. The goal of the insurrection was to overthrow the results of an election. Pretty big difference. If you don't see it, you aren't paying attention.
You seem to be saying that group A is justified so they are correct in there behavior. Group B is not justified, so is therefore in the wrong.
I am saying that political violence is political violence. We can argue about about the details or order of magnitude, , but it's fundamentally the same thing, regardless of pretense.
If I get somewhere that I'm not having to type with my thumbs, I could be a lot more eloquent.
In my opinion, yes. Group A is justified, and their protests were the correct avenue for expressing their grievances. Group B is not, and even if they were, sedition is wrong.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not see the protests as political violence. The only violence I saw (and I attended the ones in my state) was perpetrated by the police.
I can't speak for all of the protests, but the goal was not to overthrow the government. It was to demand equality. I believe one is justified, the other is not.
For clarity, I draw a distinction between this past summers protests and riots, although the line can blur. When protesters marched across the bridge at Selma, they knew what was waiting on the other side. The peaceful protest that provoked police violence lead to the independence of India are a good example as well. They may not have been violent in the since that they sought to do harm, but violent in the since that they explicitly came to provoke the harm done to them. Many of this summers protest are "violent" in that same since.
That is not quite the same thing as riots, or storming the Capital, but all acts of political violence none the less. Violence as a means to a political end.
So far as your point on this summers protests not seeking to overthrow a government, I would counter that they instead explicitly sought to overthrow a system. I try to look into many people's views, and as such, would find it difficult to believe that many, perhaps any, of those that stormed the Capitol would say that they did so to overthrow the government, but to overthrow a system. Many likely view themselves as protectors of the Constitution, not subverting it.
On a broader note, I think that is the centerpiece of our national division. We have two deeply held competing views of what the United States is and should be. I have been trying to keep my politics out of this discussion, and will continue to do so, but I see very few paths forward. But there are some. Hopefully we can do so without further bloodshed.
And I just want to state, I have truly enjoyed our discussion. In the online world where everything is a chance to call someone stupid, it's truly a pleasure to have a civil discussion.
The "police burned down all of those business" and "the police will be getting the TWO BILLION DOLLAR repair bill from the insurance industry" and other BLM fables.
Because I listen to what oppressed people are saying, I read a lot, and I work in a public library. I see it. White men are not oppressed. Even if they are dirt poor, they are still white men. Their gender and color of their skin affords them privileges and influence that the rest of us will never experience. Those privileges are in our laws, our systems, our culture, etc. The only way to change it is to protest for equality.
There were many peaceful protests over the summer in addition to riots. Riots are illegal and should be prevented, but they do happen inside pretty much every country. It's not great, but it doesn't cause a breakdown in long term governance. The rioters go home, the glass gets swept up and agitators get arrested eventually.
Insurrection is a whole different level. Imagine if these guys succeeded on Wednesday!!! You'd have the heads of the opposition strung up, possibly the Vice President. The summer violence drove some of the craziness this week, but in no way are they on the same level. 90% of those guys weren't out for blood, but I guarantee you 10% were and the other 90% were pissed off enough to stand by and watch. America is not exceptional, it can happen here.
You cannot allow insurrection if you want your country to function.
Also, the line between "peaceful protest" and "riot" can become blurred. In Portland, I saw the same thing play out every night over the summer/autumn on the streets of downtown: protesters would assemble quite peacefully in the street and inevitably at some point between 10p and midnight, the police would - with little or no provocation - declare a riot and bum rush the crowd. Every night.
I agree that this isn't something surprising and our media should not treat it as such. Only goes further to prove our for-profit press looks to create content consumable for the masses, not some sort of propaganda institutions set up by the Democratic party. Although, to the far-right lunatics who are the minority in the country, maybe everything that isn't catering to them looks the same.
I always come back to how the American right essentially has no ideas, and no desire beyond power. You can see it in the complete lack of Republican legislation passed before and during the Trump presidency. I ask this question of what is really the worst that these Democratic lawmakers seek to do? Raise taxes? That isn't oppression, certainly not to the many well to do's inside this movement, and can only help those on the middle and lower rungs of the economic ladder.
It's all grievance; they just want to be in charge and have zero ideas on how to fix problems beyond blaming it on someone else. They were just in charge, they did nothing, and ignored catastrophic issues like a pandemic raging out of control.
How can we convince people that the "news" of stolen elections and far left conspiracies is garbage, and that facts are facts? That's one thing we'll never be able to do no matter how many Senators we disbar or Presidents we impeach. Unfortunately we will see exactly how far these normal folks are willing to go no matter what.
Maybe, but I think the reason people believe is not reason at all - emotional priors is the root of it. They want to believe so they believe. Like Patrick said, it's a value system. And how in a free society do you change people's values without going all fascist yourself?
Agree about education, but I think a second strategy is pushing back against organizations that spread propaganda. While that's difficult in a 1st Amendment environment, I hopeful that a lawsuit from Dominion voting against Newsmax and OneAmericaNewsNetwork could bankrupt those two organizations and shut them down. Victims of extremist slander have a special role to play the way our legal system currently functions. Another option, and I'm not sure how I feel about it, is to update some of our rules on free speech, especially in light of how misinformation about Covid has caused the loss of thousands of lives and millions of jobs and businesses. Given that the major social media sites aren't government entities, they could be better regulated around hosting true content on critical issues and preventing the spread of violence. How to deal with Fox is perhaps the hardest nut to crack.
I think there's a difference between sensationalism and propaganda, and it's a fine line between them to be sure. But, the two are often conflated in conversations about the media today. Even the term "the media" to me as an oversimplification of a broad ecosystem of information dissemination. Sensationalism is what news organizations have been doing for a very long time. And it can be annoying and sometimes distort reality in a way that offends me, but the news is delivered by news people and news people, as flawed as they may be, are interested by definition in events that occurred and talking about them. Propaganda in this case is a deliberate attempt to distort the reality of events to further some political or economic or religious goal. So on the one hand you have a flawed (something worthwhile complaining about) delivery method of information about the world, and on the other you have systematic attempt to use logical fallacies to further the feeling of a shared ideal. That's where emotional priors come in.
I don't need to make a list of News organizations for you, I think you're well aware of the differentiation I'm trying to get across as well as the organizations in question. I'm not trying to pull some kind of rhetorical trick here. The core issue here is how one defines propaganda, which is what I'm addressing. If all information is propaganda then why believe anything anyone ever says about anything? If what I believe is lies and what you believe in lies then what's the point in posting on a thread at all?
O dear, this comes close to my home, so a reply is in place. In all western european countries freedom of speech etc. is an integral part of the constitution (except of course the UK which does not have a constitution). It is integral and not later added as an amendment...
Also there are some limitations which are added by due legal process. So suggesting that these limitations are a sign of a lack of freedom is either uninformed or simply malicious. Even the beloved second amendment has been judged by the US supreme court to be subject to restrictions.
We just had 4 straight years of Democratic Party leaning "news" outfits listing fake "Russian Collusion" stories about how Russia stole the election for Trump . . . .
The idea of Russian collusion itself is a right-leaning spin on a real story of an investigation of Russian of meddling that's neither left nor right. It never made any sense to me why there was such a backlash against it. Election meddling from an adversary that did it kind of openly is what it is, and to that end just because people who are seen or identify as conservative were guilty of various crimes around it was taken as some kind of affront. Makes no sense.
What? The "idea of Russian Collusion" is entirely a Democratic Party spin. There is a reason that a gallup poll showed that 75% of Democrats thought Russia came and changed the vote totals of the 2016 election and it has nothing to do with right/left and all to do with the Democrats inability to question authority.
No-one -- even Trumpists -- doubts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election through hacking, leaks of private communications, writing and promoting falsified "news stories", etc.
The question of Russian Collusion is solely re: whether senior Trumpists asked or worked with the Russians to do so.
I don't think any poll I'm aware of ever asked if people believe Russia changed vote totals 2016. Nor was that part of any investigation around meddling, that I do know because I've read the Mueller report. This assertion is part and parcel to my point. You simply stated a thing you believe, likely parroting something you read elsewhere that came from a deliberate attempt to misinform. The idea of a pollster asking if someone identifies as a Democrat and then asking if they believe Russia changed vote totals in 2016 sounds like it would be counterproductive to that pollster's reputation.
Great write up, this does feel like the beginning of the end unless those in power change the course of events. I've been pondering where you draw the line on consequences. Impeachment and the 25th amendment seem valid plays for orange Julius, but what about the rest? How do you handle the rep from WV? The cops, both those who participated directly and those who opened the door? I think brining up how the actions of one man were all that stood between the actual outcome of the riot and thr parallel universe where they took hostages is important to consider when thinking about consequences. That could have been a way worse situation (and a 100% better one if they had prepared even a little for it) so do you punish the outcome or punish the intent? The gallows were built as a symbol, but don't think they wouldn't have been used if they took Pelosi or someone.
On the question of punishment, you should read a specific comment to Hillary Clinton's WaPoost op-ed, from a teacher. Not punishment for punishment's sake, but as protection for others. Example: when you have a child who gets frustrated and bites other children, they dont stop doing it because you tell them it isnt nice. They havent grown up to that skill yet. You have to find a way to stop them from terrorizing the other children AND teach them to recognize other people can be hurt and how it feels. Sometimes you learn those children are incapable of getting that skill, no matter what. You have to separate them. They cause a LOT of damage to innocents.
Is it not also true that, when people are afraid, they are generally more likely to give up their freedoms in the name of security?
Do you worry that your emphasis on "visible and serious consequences"- on punishment- as opposed to, say, the economic inequality and corruption that have led so many people to become disillusioned with their government in the first place, might contribute to such a result?
Isn't it a bit lazy to tell us, essentially, that they are all just white supremacist morons who can't be reasoned with?
A few questions that I have that may, or may not, have answers:
But first:
If a poll I have seen is correct, about half of Republicans think that the events at the Capitol are justified, that means roughly 25 percent of the country feels that way. I'll low ball that number to 20 percent going forward. 1 in 5 people.
If those that represent 20% of the population are removed from having a voice for their opinion, came we truly be a Democracy?
If 20% of the population views their will as being pushed out of the national conversation, would they be justified in viewing themselves as under attack, opening a logical path to acts of political violence as the only way to be heard?
If people calling for a purge of unpopular discourse do so for the protection of the current system, is that meaningful any different than any totalitarian regime seeking to retain power?
Will social media companies deplatforming political figures simply create less diverse echo chambers while simultaneously creating there own less diverse echo chambers?
I'm sure no one else cares, but these are the questions I ponder.
The question you don't bother asking is whether those people have any justification aside from pure, raw, screaming grievance. The election wasn't stolen. Social media platforms aren't "the national conversation." Kicking off people for the literal incitement of violence isn't the work of a totalitarian regime seeking to retain power. Facts, as they say, don't care about your feelings.
With all due respect, (and I assure you that I do have respect for your work and thoughts or I would not be here) I again think you are missing fundamental points. Fact do not care about your feels, but politics has never been about facts, especially in a democratic nation. It's about getting a majority, or something close to it. Facts are completely irrelevant here.
I'm willing to accept that social media may not be the national conversation, but I'm at a lose to find anything else that is. I have seen a poll that somewhere around 70% of people get all or most of there news from social media, so if anything comes close, I'm not sure what it is.
Social media has a ripple effect. People migrated from Myspace after the cool kids went to Facebook. The rest just followed the heard. I would suspect that you will see a similar, albeit less severe, migration from the large social media companies soon. In fact, it seems to already be happening. As it seems to be happening solely on political grounds, the news they consume will reflect that. Chomsky called the function of the now legacy press Manufacturing Consent. It becomes a impossibility with a highly divergent culture, one that literally doesn't speak in spheres that hears each other.
How do you move forward in a situation like that? How do you build anything like a relationship with those you never meet? And perhaps most importantly, when do those aforementioned 20% or more of the population get tired of being is sheep among wolves, to paraphrase Franklin.
I am not saying that the actions of a few are anything other that reprehensible. I am saying that any move to exclude a large section of the population from being heard, or represented, will have predictable consequences.
I'd love to hear, if you care to so engage, what you believe a fix is.
I can not see a scenario outside of bringing everyone to the table, a downward spiral of sectarian violence, or some variation of the whole "create a wasteland and call it peace" trope.
Would really like to hear what you have to say on the subject. As a glorified janitor, I always like to hear the pros thoughts, even in cases that I disagree with them.
I don't believe that is a answer. At best, its slapping a bullet on a gunshot wound. It does nothing to heal the damage, or to address the person with the gun.
A brief note: while I loathe the constant comparisons to the Nazi party and the Beer Hall Pustch, it is what everyone focuses on, so I'll roll with it.
After the event, the major players spent a year or two in jail, and the party was outlawed. In that time the party actually grew. Consider that for a moment. That, I believe, is the only part of the story that is actually analogous to modern day.
Unless the plan is it imprison 30 million people, we need a deeper treatment.
If the plan is to imprison 30 million, we need a deeper treatment.
Oh yes, won't we think of the 20% of the people that want to be the only ones in control. What kind of democracy allows 80% of the people to control the country? Are you seriously asking this? They had control of the presidency and the Senate, attained through a minority of votes, and have just been voted out. They utterly failed at the response to a global pandemic that soon will have claimed 400,000 American lives, and is still claiming 3,000+ lives/day. If that isn't a reason to realize they are completely incapable of governing, then nothing is. The election wasn't stolen, regardless of what you lunatics think, it was lost through shear incompetence and maliciousness.
2) a minority that insists on hegemonic political control over the majority is, *by definition*, not interested in democracy. "share of voice" has no meaning here.
3) there are places in the world where minority hegemony is the established model, if one considers majority rule deeply unacceptable.
This is an excellent article. You do a really great job in succinctly describing what happened in January 6th (which really drove home how terrible the events really were). Your argument about consequences is particularly good too. Thanks for this piece!
Patrick, you're a good man and a wise one, but your narrative colors your interpretation of the history of the riot. You are right that ordinary people are always at the scene of violent events - we are all ordinary people. If you think a guy in a Viking hat and a military veteran small business owner is any different than you or me, think again. The events on that day didn't begin that day. After a long year of burning cities where the media tells us that there's nothing to see here, plenty of ordinary people wanted to give the finger to the ruling class. Political road rage, but not insurection. Gimme a break.
Excellent, as always. But this: "For every bearded miscreant wearing a sweatshirt celebrating the Holocaust in that crowd, there were a dozen firefighters, cops, masonry workers, and business owners." I think you're still "working-class"ing the seditionists. Don't forget the real estate brokers, local politicians, regional restaurant chain owners. I think this is as much a "local gentry" uprising as a working class one.
One of the new realities of this era, that 1/6 has illuminated, is that the Fringe is the Center of the Right—it's all collapsed. Of course this didn't happen suddenly on Wednesday, it has been built over decades of a corporate media ecosystem of Fox and talk radio that has been massively accelerated by social media. So it's been possible, at least since the entry of Trump on scene with the Birther conspiracy, to not just to subsist in our society's edges despite being brainwashed, but to be a successful, prosperous local gentry who has swallowed a whole menu of political and social conspiracy (built on top of racism/white supremacy and conservative class superiority) by a self-reinforcing apparatus of the President, other GOPers, their right-wing media, regurgitated hourly by through millions of interactions with coworkers, family members and friends IRL and on Facebook. This sprawling conspiracy has become the heart and "base" of the party since Trump took over, and at least until the end of last week it was broadly acceptable to hold and publicly espouse crazy lies for the very reason that it was the platform of one of the two major parties. The degree to which this mass delusion can be drained from our society is the degree to which there now arrive negative social, professional, financial and political consequences to holding these views and supporting the politicians and media outlets that advance them—that the insanity is actively pushed back beyond the boundary of permissibility, so that if and when we need to speak of a "fringe" we can actually be referring to a small outlier minority of brain melted lost souls who really can do nothing more than LARP, rather a centralized, institutional cult that has embraced fascist methods of violence and actually undertaken an insurrection.
Re: the "fringe is the center of the right" -- Polling data shows surprising (to me, perhaps shouldn't have been) levels of support for the raid on the Capitol among self-identified Republicans. It's close to 50%.
The number of Republicans who blame Biden for the raid on the Capitol is also about 50%.
If it's that YouGov poll, I saw that, which is of course extremely troubling. I think that could very likely shift, let's see some other data come in this week. But then there's always the problem of whether people provide the responses that they think they are supposed to say out loud, vs. what they actually think.
The Clintons started the birther conspiracy. As well as the Russia-stole-the-election conspiracy. I don't see you blaming them at all. Hmmm.
At least you get to write "1/6" as your own personal talisman. Do you retire 9/11 now or is stiil good?
I was going to ban you because you're not adding anything of value to this comment section, but actually, you're doing great sweetie, by all means keep going
Thanks Patrick! Your embrace of your paternalistic fascism is now complete. You can rule over your little fiefdom here, complete with sycophant minions, to your heart's content.
Maybe throw in a few more non-Euro-centric historical lessons or you might just come across as another disgruntled white guy.
Lmao maybe you're just a dipshit whose ideas are bad, dude
Ya know I was almost hesitant to post my comment because I wasn't sure I had sufficiently articulated my notions about online Koolaid-chugging, but then here you come along. Brilliant! [Chef's Kiss Emoji]! I'm only disappointed you didn't mention Vince Foster.
Please tell me more about Kool-Aid , Mr. 1/6 Conspiracy Truther.
I think you can safely call them all non-bourgeoisie. Many of whom want to be in that class of society society but are laughed at or worse, exploited by the elites.
It's wild how broad the appeal of this movement is. From the Q lords in congress to minimum wage workers, seems anyone can become radicalized by this. I mean hell I agree with some of what they're saying (the politicians aren't working for us part, not the trump as god emperor part). Think the election showed how many people can or could be swayed by this rhetoric, so the wakeup call should have happened ohhhh...a couple years ago at this point.
Can you actually name anyone not acting on behalf of the Democratic Party that refers to Trump as a god emperor?
Besides magats on 4chan no, but I'm going to believe you're smart enough to know the context with which that was written. The people at that rally believed in Trump above god and country. Trump is the capstone of their worship pyramid, and that is an awful truth to consider.
I am going to have to believe that you are a little delusional if you actually believe that "The people at that rally believed in Trump above god and country."
Many would appreciate a second conversation with Mike Duncan regarding the rise of fascism in the United States, counter-revolution, increase in actual leftism in terms of anarchism, and the failures of centrist politics (worsening of material conditions, failure to control COVID, lack of access to healthcare) that is moving the United States towards collapse, transformation, dissolution, or reform.
I'd like to second this request. I've shared that early-Covid April episode with a few folks in the last couple days, and would love to listen to and then share an episode dedicated to the understanding and contextualizing the political events of the last few months.
I would have never believed that such a privileged group of people could be so misled to believe that they are oppressed and persecuted in any way. The way most white Americans characterize their situation in this country is just mesmerizing. Watching people with two cars, 3000+ sf houses, and fridges full of food, constantly complaining about how they are “exploited, infringed on their rights and persecuted” by the “tyrannical government” leaves me constantly in shocking aw.
How does the saying go? When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
The fact that your only measurement of some people is by their skin color and presumed wealth is a reflection of your bias.
I loved this piece. And after reading your comments, I thought it might be nice to . . . just . . . read that someone loved it.
Excellent and insightful....👍👍👍
Exactly right. The South in many ways won the Civil War by winning the post-war battle: “Lost Cause,” Jim Crow, decimating Reconstruction. We all naturally want to move on after a traumatic event, but history shows that making a good, safe world requires vigilance, never stopping the hard work of constant push back against fanaticism. First order here, I think: impeach (so Trump can’t be on 2024 ballot), then figure out how much his enablers, especially in Congress, helped egg on, direct, and assist. Then prosecute them—not just impeach. Actual criminal trials, prison. Make it clear there are no safe harbors for sedition, that no one gets a free pass.
Thanks for the insight. Agree with your analysis. Trump should be impeached ASAP. What are your thoughts on BLM and ANTIFA riots in cities around the United States that preceded the biggie in DC?
1) I think the events over the summer - driven as much or more by the extremely aggressive police response than the actions of protesters themselves - have helped make violence a more openly acceptable thing in American politics.
2) There's an enormous difference between the protests over the summer and an attempt at overturning the results of a democratic election, aimed at legislators in the course of their duties, driven by the sitting president and a faction of elected officials who sought to benefit politically from the actions of the mob.
We shouldn't equate the two.
Pat, you really gotta put your comments behind a paywall.
No one deserves blue lives matter conspiracy theorists shitting up their comment threads. God bless you for engaging but come on, you know they're not here to learn about why they're wrong. They're here to put up chaff and trigger the libs.
Great article as always. Loved your roman history posts back in the old deadspin days.
I believe your analysis is fundamentally flawed. Regardless of cause, the summer riots targeted small businesses and first responders. As you stated, many of those classes are among the people who stormed the Capitol.
The only substantial difference I see if that one group assaulted local power, the other, national power.
The summer protests were led by people who are watching police murder Black people, and in direct response to that police brutality. The insurrection was led by a bunch of people who are in no way oppressed, and as a direct response to a campaign of misinformation lies. The goal of the summer protests was societal, structural change. The goal of the insurrection was to overthrow the results of an election. Pretty big difference. If you don't see it, you aren't paying attention.
You're as duped at the next commie.
You seem to be saying that group A is justified so they are correct in there behavior. Group B is not justified, so is therefore in the wrong.
I am saying that political violence is political violence. We can argue about about the details or order of magnitude, , but it's fundamentally the same thing, regardless of pretense.
If I get somewhere that I'm not having to type with my thumbs, I could be a lot more eloquent.
In my opinion, yes. Group A is justified, and their protests were the correct avenue for expressing their grievances. Group B is not, and even if they were, sedition is wrong.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not see the protests as political violence. The only violence I saw (and I attended the ones in my state) was perpetrated by the police.
I can't speak for all of the protests, but the goal was not to overthrow the government. It was to demand equality. I believe one is justified, the other is not.
For clarity, I draw a distinction between this past summers protests and riots, although the line can blur. When protesters marched across the bridge at Selma, they knew what was waiting on the other side. The peaceful protest that provoked police violence lead to the independence of India are a good example as well. They may not have been violent in the since that they sought to do harm, but violent in the since that they explicitly came to provoke the harm done to them. Many of this summers protest are "violent" in that same since.
That is not quite the same thing as riots, or storming the Capital, but all acts of political violence none the less. Violence as a means to a political end.
So far as your point on this summers protests not seeking to overthrow a government, I would counter that they instead explicitly sought to overthrow a system. I try to look into many people's views, and as such, would find it difficult to believe that many, perhaps any, of those that stormed the Capitol would say that they did so to overthrow the government, but to overthrow a system. Many likely view themselves as protectors of the Constitution, not subverting it.
On a broader note, I think that is the centerpiece of our national division. We have two deeply held competing views of what the United States is and should be. I have been trying to keep my politics out of this discussion, and will continue to do so, but I see very few paths forward. But there are some. Hopefully we can do so without further bloodshed.
And I just want to state, I have truly enjoyed our discussion. In the online world where everything is a chance to call someone stupid, it's truly a pleasure to have a civil discussion.
Because YOU are the fascist.
The "police burned down all of those business" and "the police will be getting the TWO BILLION DOLLAR repair bill from the insurance industry" and other BLM fables.
Correct. Political violence is political violence. If it is not stopped immediately it will take over and we will return to the days of Charles V
How is it that you know the level of oppression that ANY rioter/protestor has?
Because I listen to what oppressed people are saying, I read a lot, and I work in a public library. I see it. White men are not oppressed. Even if they are dirt poor, they are still white men. Their gender and color of their skin affords them privileges and influence that the rest of us will never experience. Those privileges are in our laws, our systems, our culture, etc. The only way to change it is to protest for equality.
"White men are not oppressed."
Well, when YOUR racism is that blatant, what can I say?
100%- different Jon below
The wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
There were many peaceful protests over the summer in addition to riots. Riots are illegal and should be prevented, but they do happen inside pretty much every country. It's not great, but it doesn't cause a breakdown in long term governance. The rioters go home, the glass gets swept up and agitators get arrested eventually.
Insurrection is a whole different level. Imagine if these guys succeeded on Wednesday!!! You'd have the heads of the opposition strung up, possibly the Vice President. The summer violence drove some of the craziness this week, but in no way are they on the same level. 90% of those guys weren't out for blood, but I guarantee you 10% were and the other 90% were pissed off enough to stand by and watch. America is not exceptional, it can happen here.
You cannot allow insurrection if you want your country to function.
Also, the line between "peaceful protest" and "riot" can become blurred. In Portland, I saw the same thing play out every night over the summer/autumn on the streets of downtown: protesters would assemble quite peacefully in the street and inevitably at some point between 10p and midnight, the police would - with little or no provocation - declare a riot and bum rush the crowd. Every night.
You can't pretend protesting/rioting is an insurrection if you want your country to function in any manner othet than a police state.
Forget it Donny, you're out of your element.
Great analysis.
I agree that this isn't something surprising and our media should not treat it as such. Only goes further to prove our for-profit press looks to create content consumable for the masses, not some sort of propaganda institutions set up by the Democratic party. Although, to the far-right lunatics who are the minority in the country, maybe everything that isn't catering to them looks the same.
I always come back to how the American right essentially has no ideas, and no desire beyond power. You can see it in the complete lack of Republican legislation passed before and during the Trump presidency. I ask this question of what is really the worst that these Democratic lawmakers seek to do? Raise taxes? That isn't oppression, certainly not to the many well to do's inside this movement, and can only help those on the middle and lower rungs of the economic ladder.
It's all grievance; they just want to be in charge and have zero ideas on how to fix problems beyond blaming it on someone else. They were just in charge, they did nothing, and ignored catastrophic issues like a pandemic raging out of control.
How can we convince people that the "news" of stolen elections and far left conspiracies is garbage, and that facts are facts? That's one thing we'll never be able to do no matter how many Senators we disbar or Presidents we impeach. Unfortunately we will see exactly how far these normal folks are willing to go no matter what.
Education - in all of its forms and variants. This is the root. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe, but I think the reason people believe is not reason at all - emotional priors is the root of it. They want to believe so they believe. Like Patrick said, it's a value system. And how in a free society do you change people's values without going all fascist yourself?
Agree. The way people gobble up misinformation as truth is scary.
Agree about education, but I think a second strategy is pushing back against organizations that spread propaganda. While that's difficult in a 1st Amendment environment, I hopeful that a lawsuit from Dominion voting against Newsmax and OneAmericaNewsNetwork could bankrupt those two organizations and shut them down. Victims of extremist slander have a special role to play the way our legal system currently functions. Another option, and I'm not sure how I feel about it, is to update some of our rules on free speech, especially in light of how misinformation about Covid has caused the loss of thousands of lives and millions of jobs and businesses. Given that the major social media sites aren't government entities, they could be better regulated around hosting true content on critical issues and preventing the spread of violence. How to deal with Fox is perhaps the hardest nut to crack.
Can you name one organization (news or otherwise) that does not spread propaganda?
I think there's a difference between sensationalism and propaganda, and it's a fine line between them to be sure. But, the two are often conflated in conversations about the media today. Even the term "the media" to me as an oversimplification of a broad ecosystem of information dissemination. Sensationalism is what news organizations have been doing for a very long time. And it can be annoying and sometimes distort reality in a way that offends me, but the news is delivered by news people and news people, as flawed as they may be, are interested by definition in events that occurred and talking about them. Propaganda in this case is a deliberate attempt to distort the reality of events to further some political or economic or religious goal. So on the one hand you have a flawed (something worthwhile complaining about) delivery method of information about the world, and on the other you have systematic attempt to use logical fallacies to further the feeling of a shared ideal. That's where emotional priors come in.
So, no names? You will not be able to find them. There are not any.
I don't need to make a list of News organizations for you, I think you're well aware of the differentiation I'm trying to get across as well as the organizations in question. I'm not trying to pull some kind of rhetorical trick here. The core issue here is how one defines propaganda, which is what I'm addressing. If all information is propaganda then why believe anything anyone ever says about anything? If what I believe is lies and what you believe in lies then what's the point in posting on a thread at all?
Agree. How do you manage free speech without going authoritarian?
I think Germany has an approach for addressing speech that tries to glorify the Nazi past. I'm not sure how it works.
You go to jail. They don't have free speech in Germany. Or France. Or in most of Europe. They have regulated speech.
O dear, this comes close to my home, so a reply is in place. In all western european countries freedom of speech etc. is an integral part of the constitution (except of course the UK which does not have a constitution). It is integral and not later added as an amendment...
Also there are some limitations which are added by due legal process. So suggesting that these limitations are a sign of a lack of freedom is either uninformed or simply malicious. Even the beloved second amendment has been judged by the US supreme court to be subject to restrictions.
We just had 4 straight years of Democratic Party leaning "news" outfits listing fake "Russian Collusion" stories about how Russia stole the election for Trump . . . .
The idea of Russian collusion itself is a right-leaning spin on a real story of an investigation of Russian of meddling that's neither left nor right. It never made any sense to me why there was such a backlash against it. Election meddling from an adversary that did it kind of openly is what it is, and to that end just because people who are seen or identify as conservative were guilty of various crimes around it was taken as some kind of affront. Makes no sense.
What? The "idea of Russian Collusion" is entirely a Democratic Party spin. There is a reason that a gallup poll showed that 75% of Democrats thought Russia came and changed the vote totals of the 2016 election and it has nothing to do with right/left and all to do with the Democrats inability to question authority.
No-one -- even Trumpists -- doubts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election through hacking, leaks of private communications, writing and promoting falsified "news stories", etc.
The question of Russian Collusion is solely re: whether senior Trumpists asked or worked with the Russians to do so.
I don't think any poll I'm aware of ever asked if people believe Russia changed vote totals 2016. Nor was that part of any investigation around meddling, that I do know because I've read the Mueller report. This assertion is part and parcel to my point. You simply stated a thing you believe, likely parroting something you read elsewhere that came from a deliberate attempt to misinform. The idea of a pollster asking if someone identifies as a Democrat and then asking if they believe Russia changed vote totals in 2016 sounds like it would be counterproductive to that pollster's reputation.
Great write up, this does feel like the beginning of the end unless those in power change the course of events. I've been pondering where you draw the line on consequences. Impeachment and the 25th amendment seem valid plays for orange Julius, but what about the rest? How do you handle the rep from WV? The cops, both those who participated directly and those who opened the door? I think brining up how the actions of one man were all that stood between the actual outcome of the riot and thr parallel universe where they took hostages is important to consider when thinking about consequences. That could have been a way worse situation (and a 100% better one if they had prepared even a little for it) so do you punish the outcome or punish the intent? The gallows were built as a symbol, but don't think they wouldn't have been used if they took Pelosi or someone.
On the question of punishment, you should read a specific comment to Hillary Clinton's WaPoost op-ed, from a teacher. Not punishment for punishment's sake, but as protection for others. Example: when you have a child who gets frustrated and bites other children, they dont stop doing it because you tell them it isnt nice. They havent grown up to that skill yet. You have to find a way to stop them from terrorizing the other children AND teach them to recognize other people can be hurt and how it feels. Sometimes you learn those children are incapable of getting that skill, no matter what. You have to separate them. They cause a LOT of damage to innocents.
Is it not also true that, when people are afraid, they are generally more likely to give up their freedoms in the name of security?
Do you worry that your emphasis on "visible and serious consequences"- on punishment- as opposed to, say, the economic inequality and corruption that have led so many people to become disillusioned with their government in the first place, might contribute to such a result?
Isn't it a bit lazy to tell us, essentially, that they are all just white supremacist morons who can't be reasoned with?
A few questions that I have that may, or may not, have answers:
But first:
If a poll I have seen is correct, about half of Republicans think that the events at the Capitol are justified, that means roughly 25 percent of the country feels that way. I'll low ball that number to 20 percent going forward. 1 in 5 people.
If those that represent 20% of the population are removed from having a voice for their opinion, came we truly be a Democracy?
If 20% of the population views their will as being pushed out of the national conversation, would they be justified in viewing themselves as under attack, opening a logical path to acts of political violence as the only way to be heard?
If people calling for a purge of unpopular discourse do so for the protection of the current system, is that meaningful any different than any totalitarian regime seeking to retain power?
Will social media companies deplatforming political figures simply create less diverse echo chambers while simultaneously creating there own less diverse echo chambers?
I'm sure no one else cares, but these are the questions I ponder.
The question you don't bother asking is whether those people have any justification aside from pure, raw, screaming grievance. The election wasn't stolen. Social media platforms aren't "the national conversation." Kicking off people for the literal incitement of violence isn't the work of a totalitarian regime seeking to retain power. Facts, as they say, don't care about your feelings.
With all due respect, (and I assure you that I do have respect for your work and thoughts or I would not be here) I again think you are missing fundamental points. Fact do not care about your feels, but politics has never been about facts, especially in a democratic nation. It's about getting a majority, or something close to it. Facts are completely irrelevant here.
I'm willing to accept that social media may not be the national conversation, but I'm at a lose to find anything else that is. I have seen a poll that somewhere around 70% of people get all or most of there news from social media, so if anything comes close, I'm not sure what it is.
Social media has a ripple effect. People migrated from Myspace after the cool kids went to Facebook. The rest just followed the heard. I would suspect that you will see a similar, albeit less severe, migration from the large social media companies soon. In fact, it seems to already be happening. As it seems to be happening solely on political grounds, the news they consume will reflect that. Chomsky called the function of the now legacy press Manufacturing Consent. It becomes a impossibility with a highly divergent culture, one that literally doesn't speak in spheres that hears each other.
How do you move forward in a situation like that? How do you build anything like a relationship with those you never meet? And perhaps most importantly, when do those aforementioned 20% or more of the population get tired of being is sheep among wolves, to paraphrase Franklin.
I am not saying that the actions of a few are anything other that reprehensible. I am saying that any move to exclude a large section of the population from being heard, or represented, will have predictable consequences.
Believe me, I'm not missing the point. I'm saying that making national policy solely on the basis of minoritarian grievance isn't going to fix things.
I'd love to hear, if you care to so engage, what you believe a fix is.
I can not see a scenario outside of bringing everyone to the table, a downward spiral of sectarian violence, or some variation of the whole "create a wasteland and call it peace" trope.
Would really like to hear what you have to say on the subject. As a glorified janitor, I always like to hear the pros thoughts, even in cases that I disagree with them.
The article you are commenting under address this question. This is the closing remark:
"If there’s a lesson to draw from history here, it’s that only consequences - visible and serious consequences - will contain the damage. "
I don't believe that is a answer. At best, its slapping a bullet on a gunshot wound. It does nothing to heal the damage, or to address the person with the gun.
A brief note: while I loathe the constant comparisons to the Nazi party and the Beer Hall Pustch, it is what everyone focuses on, so I'll roll with it.
After the event, the major players spent a year or two in jail, and the party was outlawed. In that time the party actually grew. Consider that for a moment. That, I believe, is the only part of the story that is actually analogous to modern day.
Unless the plan is it imprison 30 million people, we need a deeper treatment.
If the plan is to imprison 30 million, we need a deeper treatment.
Oh yes, won't we think of the 20% of the people that want to be the only ones in control. What kind of democracy allows 80% of the people to control the country? Are you seriously asking this? They had control of the presidency and the Senate, attained through a minority of votes, and have just been voted out. They utterly failed at the response to a global pandemic that soon will have claimed 400,000 American lives, and is still claiming 3,000+ lives/day. If that isn't a reason to realize they are completely incapable of governing, then nothing is. The election wasn't stolen, regardless of what you lunatics think, it was lost through shear incompetence and maliciousness.
1) 20% is a minority.
2) a minority that insists on hegemonic political control over the majority is, *by definition*, not interested in democracy. "share of voice" has no meaning here.
3) there are places in the world where minority hegemony is the established model, if one considers majority rule deeply unacceptable.
This is an excellent article. You do a really great job in succinctly describing what happened in January 6th (which really drove home how terrible the events really were). Your argument about consequences is particularly good too. Thanks for this piece!
I love this article for linguistic acquity
Patrick, you're a good man and a wise one, but your narrative colors your interpretation of the history of the riot. You are right that ordinary people are always at the scene of violent events - we are all ordinary people. If you think a guy in a Viking hat and a military veteran small business owner is any different than you or me, think again. The events on that day didn't begin that day. After a long year of burning cities where the media tells us that there's nothing to see here, plenty of ordinary people wanted to give the finger to the ruling class. Political road rage, but not insurection. Gimme a break.