Is Fear for Democracy and the Rule of Law Misplaced?

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI): "Had the tables been turned, and President Trump 

won the election and those were tens of thousands of 

Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, 

I might have been a little concerned."

Apparently, the Senator was not at all concerned about hundreds of 

far right protestors trying to overthrow the government, or he is a liar?

CONTEXT

I am one person who sees American democracy and the rule of law under a deadly, sustained attack by what I now believe is the fascist GOP (FGOP) backed by a vast propaganda machine and supported by tens of millions of Americans who do not see much or any significant threat. In its intent, the FGOP is truly fascist. But what is left of democracy and the rule of law stands in its way of exercising the unrestrained power (and wealth) it lusts after. In my opinion, one does not need to wait for a fascist political party to be able to exert full-blown fascism before calling it out for what it is based on its intent.

In my opinion, the problem is grave and urgent. Others see some or much less seriousness and/or urgency. And some even see hope in America's conservative movement into what they believe is democracy and the rule of law. Some, probably most, of the latter group are operating on false beliefs and fears built on decades of deceit and emotional manipulation. They truly believe they are patriots doing what is best for America.

Some others also see the problem as serious and urgent. The following is a comment in a recent discussion here that sheds some light on the perceptions of reality and facts the fear for democracy and the rule of law are based on. The concern is focused what to do about domestic terrorism and our apparent inability to deal with it. In my opinion, a major part of our inability to deal with it is significantly grounded in the alignment of the FGOP with violent extremist far right groups. And as the comment points out, US law is inadequate to meet this threat. Acceptance of domestic terrorism such as the 1/6 coup attempt by the FGOP is evidence of the marriage of the FGOP with right wing violence. 

COMMENT: 

I don't know how such [violent] groups can be broken up under current law. People are free to associate and to be crackpots and nut jobs

It's true that under current law militias and armed groups that carry out domestic terrorism can't be broken up. But my point, in part, is that the current laws may be inadequate given the known scale of the threat. There is a glaring discrepancy between the laws that apply to international vs. domestic terrorism despite the fact that it has long been the latter that poses the gravest threats to the country. There are several good articles on the confused state of the laws used to prosecute the actions of domestic terrorists. As it stands, one former State Dept. Official, Jason Blazakis, says that existing law is a "difficult and arbitrary patchwork that makes it hard to prosecute certain acts, like politically motivated mass shootings," according to The Intercept. He gives an example:

“When someone like [Tree of Life synagogue shooter] Robert Bowers kills18 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue, and he’s not considered a domestic terrorist because he used a handgun and not a weapon of mass destruction. It really points to the absurdity of the law as it exists today,” Blazakis told The Intercept. “If that were an individual inspired by ISIS, they’d be charged with an act of terrorism.

The article (cited above) is pretty good, and discusses the pros and cons of making legal changes to address the policing of domestic terrorists. Civil Libertarians are right to worry about reforms. One reason that violent groups armed to the teeth are not legally classified as terrorist groups is because of the overreach that occurred during the 60s and 70s with anti-war groups, Black Panthers, and others. The Church Committee, after Watergate, with its enemy lists and surveillance of many ordinary citizens, made it hard to monitor and track Americans out of a warranted concern for the violation of privacy, and fear of gov't abuse of power.

Meanwhile, Biden is aware of the problem and ran on a pledge to:

Work for a domestic terrorism law that respects free speech and civil liberties, while making the same commitment to root out domestic terrorism as we have to stopping international terrorism

Pretty vague, but an admission that there is a discrepancy between our legal and political responses to intnt'l and domestic terrorism. Imagine if someone like the Pittsburgh shooter or Dylan Roof had been even tenuously connected to ISIS-- say by watching their videos online. The moral, political and legal sense of gravity would be much greater. Instead we get "there are good people on both sides" mentality continuing even after 1/6. Instead we have members of congress insisting that they need to carry guns in the Capitol. As one editorial puts it, there ought to be moral clarity about the equivalence of terrorism inspired by Jihadists and homegrown extremism. Another one weighs the potential for abuse of power and violation of Americans' civil liberties against the equally important imperative to get more serious and systematic about this plague of domestic terror.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/03/15/domestic-international-terrorism-deserve-same-legal-treatment-column/4684258001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/02/22/joe-biden-domestic-terrorism-law-ask-merrick-garland-editorials-debates/6766577002/

Btw, Canada designated the Proud Boys as a "terrorist organization" in February, something most Americans do not support in the US largely because of the 1st Amendment concerns you mentioned ("the right to be a nut job, and associate with other nut jobs").   https://www.vox.com/2021/2/3/22264722/canada-proud-boys-domestic-terrorism .... Another reason many Americans wouldn't support it is that a recent survey found that 1 in 3 of them agree with the following statement:

The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.

Perhaps warning signs like that result should give us more reason to consider labeling these groups as domestic terror organizations-- at least those well-armed groups that have a record of planning and executing acts of terror. I know there's a slippery slope issue, but I wouldn't rule it out. Maybe Canada got it right. If the Proud Boys, for ex., had been labeled that way legally, it's would be hard to imagine someone like the former guy saying "Stand back and stand by" on national TV. Legal proscriptions are powerful. Dangerous if abused, but this crazy culture of "armed patriots at the gates" should, perhaps, be dealt with by banning such groups. I know it won't happen any time soon, just as the "right to an assault rifle" is as American as apple pie, apparently.

Still, I think more drastic measures than most people here want to see are needed. No other country has such a lax posture towards citizens arming themselves to the teeth in the name of "liberty." Many European and Asian states banned guns (except carefully monitored use for hunting) long ago and no longer have the homicide rates they once did. Mass shootings every few weeks, domestic terror and hate crime at the magnitude we have them is absolutely unacceptable. Maybe armed and violent groups should not expect what you called "the right to associate and be crackpots and nut jobs." At least not the sort of nut jobs that make it their business to commit politically motivated acts of domestic terrorism. If we followed the Canadian model here then I think we would be able to break up some of these threat groups. Of course, in the short term all the armed fanatics would react with wildly increased violence. It is hard to institute peace-conducive policies in a blood-stained country that still has a cowboy ethos in large chunks of the population. That's why we never seem to get meaningful gun law reforms.

Questions: Is there a current major threat to democracy and the rule of law? Is there an alignment of the FGOP with violent far right groups? If so, is that evidence of fascist intent by (1) the republican party leadership, and/or (2) rank and file republicans? Are existing laws inadequate to meet the domestic terrorist threat, is the FGOP simply too accommodating of far right violence, or is there some combination of both?