Republican Radicalization Against Democracy

Ohio Valley Militiamen

They say they are patriotic democrats, but their tactics are fascist

and their realities are fantasies

Some people believe the impeachment is a waste of time and/or energizes the ex-president's supporters. That makes no sense to me. If people do not try to defend democracy and the rule of law against what is now reasonably seen as a bigoted fascist, anti-democratic GOP, democracy and the rule of law just might be lost. Bigoted, corrupt fascism just might replace them. Those are the stakes. 

An article in The Atlantic argues that although the GOP is moderating on some policy issues in view of public opinion, it really is hardening against democracy in favor of something more reality-detached and authoritarian. The Atlantic writes:

The republican party is radicalizing against democracy. This is the central political fact of our moment. Instead of organizing its coalition around shared policy goals, the GOP has chosen to emphasize hatred and fear of its political opponents, who—they warn—will destroy their supporters and the country. Those Manichaean stakes are used to justify every effort to retain power, and make keeping power the GOP’s highest purpose. We are living with a deadly example of just how far those efforts can go, and things are likely to get worse.

And so the Biden era of American politics is shaping up as a contest between the growing ideological hegemony of liberalism, and the intensifying opposition of a political minority that has proved willing to engage in violence in order to hold on to power. This fight isn’t ultimately about policy, where the gaps are narrowing. It’s about whether the United States will live up to the promise of democracy—and on that crucial question, we’ve rarely been so divided.

In 2020, some hoped that the colossal failures of the Trump administration and the shocking catastrophe of the coronavirus would usher in a similar landslide, but those hopes were disappointed. If COVID-19 and Donald Trump didn’t manage to produce a decisive result, it is hard to imagine what would. With structural polarization and high levels of party competition, blowout electoral victories are no longer a realistic path to achieving change. Instead, political movements win by making the controversial things they’re pushing part of the consensus. (emphasis added)

The article goes on to argue that urban, well-educated liberals are dominant in society and "the commanding heights of American culture are largely occupied by their ideological foes." That argument does not ring true. It ignores the fact that most of the perceived differences in values, which as usual are not named, are largely manufactured by years of relentless, outrageous authoritarian propaganda and lies from the GOP and powerful conservative media leviathans (Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, Cumulus Media, iHeartMedia). 

The differences in worldview and values would be much smaller if one took dark free speech out of the equation. Look at the first highlighted part of The Atlantic article. The author, Chris Hayes at MSNBC, understands that propaganda is the core of authoritarian conservative messaging. He just does not connect that fact with it being a source of social and political division based mostly on dark free speech (lies, deceit, ludicrous character assassination, baseless conspiracy theories, irrational emotional manipulation (fomented fear, anger, distrust, bigotry, etc.) and partisan motivated reasoning). That fantasy, not reality, is the main source of left vs. right differences.

The real fundamental difference is that conservative anti-democratic authoritarianism is pushing for concentrated power by suppressing elections and ignoring the rule of law and other democratic norms. The fascist right is trying to destroy democracy and the rule of law by calling it a patriotic attempt to save them. That is the most important basis of major left vs right differences. In my opinion, most of the differences are illusory. Even differences over abortion arguably are significantly or mostly illusory in view of the human condition and the power of dark free speech to distort reality.

Hayes ends his essay with this thought:

Yet the fight to democratize political power is precisely what is most necessary. Any progress toward that goal, any effort to push back against minoritarian control, will lead to bitter conflict. But there is no way to avoid that fight if we’re to defeat the growing faction that seeks to destroy majority rule. No substantive victories can endure unless democracy is refortified against its foes. That task comes first.

That makes a lot of sense. Centralization of political power by an intimidation[1] and propaganda-powered minority is the real threat.

Footnote:

1. The New York Times discusses the intimidation aspect of an armed, vocal GOP minority in an article, ‘Its Own Domestic Army’: How the G.O.P. Allied Itself With Militants:

Actions taken by paramilitary groups in Michigan last year, emboldened by President Donald J. Trump, signaled a profound shift in Republican politics and a national crisis in the making. 

Following signals from President Donald J. Trump — who had tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” after an earlier show of force in Lansing — Michigan’s Republican Party last year welcomed the support of newly emboldened paramilitary groups and other vigilantes. Prominent party members formed bonds with militias or gave tacit approval to armed activists using intimidation in a series of rallies and confrontations around the state. That intrusion into the Statehouse now looks like a portent of the assault halfway across the country months later at the United States Capitol.

Regarding the Impeachment Trial

So far, the ex-president's defense looks weak at best and otherwise ridiculous. Regardless, it will be sufficient to provide cover for republican Senators to vote against conviction. Maybe a possible public backlash might change some fascist GOP minds. But maybe not.

The first defense argument throws the coup attempters under the bus. The attorney urges prosecution of all of them. But otherwise the defense ignores the coup attempt and talks about all sorts of things other than what happened on Jan. 6. Here, the ex-president shows his loyalty to himself before loyalty to those deceived and misguided supporters who went out on a limb for him.

The next argument was expected. It says that there is no basis for impeachment now because the ex-president is out of office. Those arguments were not convincing. The House managers were convincing that there is a basis to impeach now. The House managers also pointed out that the ex-president's lawyers simply ignored two arguments in the House legal brief. That evinces the legal weakness of the defense.  

The House raised an emotional allegation 'snap impeachment' and an erratic rush to impeachment. The fear mongering there is that the Senate should not to set such a damaging precedent. Again, the defense raised no evidence that they claim was overlooked. Not one shred. All of the evidence I am aware since the House impeachment vote is against the ex-president, not for him.

On top of that, the ex-president's defense is riddled with lies and crackpot legal reasoning. The Washington Post writes: 

Former president Donald Trump will probably be acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial that is set to begin Tuesday.

But just because Trump’s defense is likely to succeed — by giving at least 34 senators a reason not to vote to convict — that doesn’t mean it’s good. On the eve of the trial, the defense team reinforced just how haphazard and strained its efforts have been.

Trump’s defense has rested on arguments that do little to address his culpability for allegedly inciting the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. It has argued that the proceedings themselves are unconstitutional and that Trump has a right to free speech — without focusing much on the established limits on such speech, which include incitement.

While making their constitutionality argument, for instance, Trump’s attorneys repeatedly cite constitutional law professor Brian Kalt’s analysis — no fewer than 15 times, in fact. They note that Kalt has cited the words of founders such as Alexander Hamilton, saying that “Hamilton seemed to believe that removal was a required component of the impeachment penalty, which suggests that he viewed late impeachment as impossible.”

As Kalt has noted, though, the 2001 analysis they cite actually argued in favor of an impeachment and trial after an official was out of office. Kalt merely cited the evidence for both sides and then disputed arguments such as the one above.

When lawyers have a weak hand, they have to make weak arguments. That's all they can do. But in court they cannot lie. Lying is what the ex-president's lawyers did. But they will probably face no ethics or other repercussions because they are talking to the US Senate. Lying to senators in an impeachment trial is apparently just fine and dandy.

Another WaPo article points out another whopper from the ex-president and argued in his legal brief:

President Donald Trump was “horrified” when violence broke out at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, as a joint session of Congress convened to confirm that he lost the election, according to his defense attorneys.

Trump tweeted calls for peace “upon hearing of the reports of violence” and took “immediate steps” to mobilize resources to counter the rioters storming the building, his lawyers argued in a brief filed Monday in advance of Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. It is “absolutely not true,” they wrote, that Trump failed to act swiftly to quell the riot.

But that revisionist history [lies] conflicts with the timeline of events on the day of the Capitol riot, as well as accounts of multiple people in contact with the president that day, who have said Trump was initially pleased to see a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes. Some former White House officials have acknowledged that he only belatedly and reluctantly issued calls for peace, after first ignoring public and private entreaties to do so.

But the decision by Trump’s attorneys to also assert a claim about Trump’s reaction that day in a footnote to their legal brief could give the House impeachment managers an opening as they prosecute their case. Among the possible witnesses who could rebut the contention that Trump moved quickly to rein his supporters are Republican senators who will now sit as jurors in the impeachment trial — some of whom have spoken publicly about their failed attempts to get the president to act expeditiously when his supporters invaded the Capitol.

That same day, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told conservative radio broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that it was “not an open question” as to whether Trump had been “derelict in his duty,” saying there had been a delay in the deployment of the National Guard to help the Capitol Police repel rioters.

“As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building,” he said, indicating that he had learned of Trump’s reaction from “senior White House officials.”

In real legal proceedings, lies like that are rejected and the lawyers making them are subject to ethics violations. But again, this is a political proceeding in a US Senate impeachment. Apparently, lies are acceptable in that venue.

And then, there is this from WaPo about the validity of the impeachment:

“This is not a trial of a president but of a private citizen. … This proceeding … violates the Constitution.” — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in remarks on the Senate floor, Jan. 26, 2021

“The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis: constitutional context, historical practice, precedent and basic common sense. It’s been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.” — Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), in remarks on the Senate floor, Jan. 26, 2021

Scores of law professors, historians and pundits have weighed in as the Senate begins its trial of former president Donald Trump, who was impeached by the House for allegedly inciting insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Our 2019 fact check was prompted by a tweet from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a Trump ally who said that “you actually can impeach former presidents” and suggested former president Barack Obama get the treatment. (This came during Trump’s first impeachment, over his dealings with Ukraine.)

Now the shoe is on the other foot. In recent weeks, some of the same scholars we spoke to in 2019 about the Obama claim have firmed up their views when asked about Trump. For his part, Gaetz is now giving kudos to the “brilliance” of Paul’s floor remarks, in which the senator argued that impeaching former officials is unconstitutional. Go figure.

No need to go figure. This is a political proceeding, not a legal one. The GOP is hell-bent on making that as clear as possible. The ex-president's lies and crackpot reasoning and GOP senators taking it seriously make that obvious.

WWJD?

 

Work with me here on this hypothetical….

Assuming Jesus actually existed/exists, and assuming that Jesus could cast a modern-day vote in a U.S. presidential election:

Question: Do you foresee Jesus the man as voting Democratic, Republican, Independent, Other (give Party)?

Since you are not God (omniscient) and therefore can’t know in advance how Jesus would vote, provide the "circumstantial evidence" as to why you chose as you did.  I.e., what evidence led you to your conclusion?

Thanks for hypothesizing and recommending.

Christian Propaganda: Fomenting Fear, Anger and Violence

Evangelical rhetoric:

10:40 to 12:00: “The madder they are, the more fearful they are, 

the more money they're gonna send you.”

Boy, oh boy, those Evangelical preachers really know how to make the congregation fearful and angry. An article by The American Prospect, The Religious Right’s Rhetoric Fueled the Insurrection, makes that clear. TAP writes:

The morning after the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol interrupted but failed to stop congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election, The Dove Christian television network’s morning news program featured hard-right activist John Guandolo telling viewers that the insurrectionists showed “restraint” by not executing the “traitors” in Congress.

“I don’t see any other way out than a real armed counterrevolution to this hostile revolution that’s taking place, primarily driven by the communists,” said Guandolo, who trains law enforcement agencies to view Muslims as terrorist threats.

These leaders and media outlets inflated the stakes of Trump’s re-election campaign and post-election efforts to “stop the steal” by portraying them as part of a spiritual war between good and evil. In their telling, Trump was the divinely anointed leader of the forces of light, and his opponents were agents of Satan bent on crushing religious freedom and destroying the American republic. Prayer and calls for spiritual warfare were blended with invocations of “1776.”

Paula White, a longtime spiritual adviser to Trump, used her position as a White House aide and campaign spokesperson to engage in the fearmongering strategy to get conservative Christians to vote for Trump. “They want to take our churches,” she said at an Evangelicals for Trump rally last summer. “They want to take our freedoms. They want to take our liberties. They want to take everything.”

At that same event, Atlanta-area megachurch pastor Jentezen Franklin warned that if evangelicals didn’t mobilize to keep Trump in power, they wouldn’t get a second chance to protect their freedom or their children’s future: “Speak now or forever hold your peace. You won’t have another chance. You won’t have freedom of religion. You won’t have freedom of speech.”

In September, Pentecostal televangelist and religious-right activist Rick Joyner announced on Jim Bakker’s television show that God has “seeded” the country with military veterans to head up Christian militias in preparation for civil war. In October, he assured his viewers that life for most Americans would go on pretty much as usual during the coming civil war because the militias would be focused on “inner cities.”

At a religious-right rally on the National Mall in September, Frank Amedia, a former Trump campaign adviser who founded the POTUS Shield network to wage spiritual warfare on Trump’s behalf, warned people not to stand in the way of God’s plans to return Trump to office, saying, “This is not a time to contend with God and his plan upon this nation and this Earth right now, for the fury of the Lord has gone out and shall accomplish that which he has said he shall do.”

When it became clear that Trump had lost, and that his response would be to deny the legitimacy of the election, most of his religious-right backers joined him. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and other right-wing leaders associated with the Council for National Policy—a secretive umbrella group of right-wing organizations—signed a letter in mid-December urging state legislatures to override voters and stating, “There is no doubt President Donald J. Trump is the lawful winner of the presidential election. Joe Biden is not president-elect.”

Jericho March, organized by two Trump administration staffers who said God had given them visions to get Christians into the streets to protest “corruption” in the election, teamed up with religious-right activist Ed Martin and Stop the Steal activist Ali Alexander to organize a December 12 “prayer rally” on the National Mall. They called it “Let the Church ROAR.”

Among the roaring speakers was Stewart Rhodes, founder of the extremist Oath Keepers, who warned that if Trump didn’t use the military to stay in power, militias like his would be forced to engage in a “much more bloody war.” Metaxas, the rally’s master of ceremonies, was apparently not troubled by Rhodes’s threat, responding with a “God bless you” and telling the crowd that Rhodes was “keepin’ it real, folks.”

California pastor Ché Ahn, a leader of the dominionist New Apostolic Reformation, called the “stolen” election “the most egregious fraud” in U.S. history and said, “I believe that this week we’re going to throw Jezebel out … and we’re gonna rule and reign through President Trump and under the lordship of Jesus Christ.” (emphasis added)

The TAP article continues like this. There is plenty of evidence of how some or most pro-ex-president Evangelicals viewed the 2020 election. Those people were made fearful and enraged on the basis of blatant lies. 

After the coup attempt of Jan. 6, a few of the radical religious preachers stepped back and disavowed the political violence. That does not absolve them of their culpability or the immorality or evil of misleading their flocks and opening their minds to a civil war based on no real threat. The only threat was and still is the centuries old Christian persecution myth. 

The church is the state

Assessing threat

Lots of data from social science research makes it clear that humans are generally lousy at estimating risk. Various unconscious biases tend to skew risk assessments unless people are shown risk data. Even then, some reject the data because they unconsciously feel threat, not consciously assess threat. The unconscious mind often overrides or distorts facts and reasoning when emotions like fear and anger are in play. Uncontrolled emotions tend to make most people, me included, less rational.

In view of the rhetoric TAP article cites, what is the risk of radical right Christianity starting a bloody civil war? Some of the rhetoric explicitly calls for violence. Under current circumstances, a large-scale civil war seems very unlikely. The threat of Christian violence is now on the radar screens of everyone who is paying attention and the ex-president does not have his national platform to keep spewing his poison and lies from. Those factors probably lessen the Christian threat.

Did the preachers and others who incited violence cross the line and break laws against inciting violence? If not, should the laws be made clearer or broader, or is that too risky? Is it unreasonable to even consider pro-violence right-wing Christianity a significant threat? 

Legitimate threat or innocent posturing?

It goes from posturing to threat the instant the 

trigger is pulled and innocents are harmed or killed

Thanks to PD for pointing out the TAP article.