Trump Fans: Stop Minimizing. Trump Critics: Stop Exaggerating.
That there are plenty of unpleasant truths out there makes it more important, if less appetizing, to tell them without the varnish.
Over the weekend, it came out that President Trump suggested that, in a case of gross election rigging and fraud, which he believes we had in 2020, it behooves us to set aside the normal rules, including those in the Constitution, to install him as President, or at the least to re-do the election. Specifically, what he said was:
So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
The words are there for all to see; what worthwhile point is to be served by trying to throw in some gloss, as many on each side have attempted?
The Never Trumpers have been doing a huge amount of breast-beating ever since, demanding that Republicans denounce this. For once, they have a point. The idea that a person who was President and wants to be again believes that there are any circumstances whatever that warrant termination, even if only temporarily, of constitutional law is preposterous, and if it had any serious traction — which it doesn’t, as the Left pretends not to know — would be dangerous.
The first obligation of the President, as reflected in his oath of Office, is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not send it packing when it affords what he regards as insufficient protection for his electoral interests. In my view, it was clear before now that Trump was unfit for office, so to me, the most recent episode is mere surplusage. Trump, though not without significant accomplishments, has no virtue or combination of virtues that could overcome the per se disqualification he earned with this Tweet.
(To those who say we should have learned to take Trump seriously not literally, I would ask what version of taking this seriously is not disqualifying for Office).
But that’s not the whole story. The table-pounding demand for a denunciation is not just a conscience-driven imperative for lawful, democratic government. It’s a political game by the Democrats and the MSM to divert attention from the pathetic job they have done for the last two years. Not for nothing is Biden way under water, and not for nothing is trust in the federal government at an all-time low. I mean, what exactly has this bunch done right? Inflation? Economic dislocation? Workforce participation? Exploding interest rates? A major war in Europe? Iran building The Big One? Surging crime? Race-huckstering for the (momentarily) favored group? Drag queens for third graders?
When this is your record, darn right you want to divert attention to something else, and what better than The Donald — the man who, by his near-psychotic self-absorption and remorseless (and really loud) sense of victimhood, demands the limelight. The media, always with a keen eye for a sucker, is delighted to give it to him, thus to divert attention, not only from the breathtaking failures of its pals in the Administration, but from its own aggressive dishonesty in promoting the fairytale Russiagate story, among other hoaxes.
Still: Just as the pro-Trumpers should stop minimizing Trump’s appalling dismissal (when useful) of the Constitution, the Democrats should stop with their breathless mantra that Trump is a “threat to democracy.” He is no such thing. He’s an ex-President with a considerable but fast dissipating following, facing serious legal problems partly hatched for him by his enemies’ bile and selective outrage, but partly by his own recklessness (at the minimum) in dealing with the requirements of law.
Probably the most prominent single item in the “threat to democracy” theme is Trump’s still not fully explored role with the January 6 rioters at the Capitol. The main allegation is that Trump egged them on and effectively, even if not in the legal sense, conspired with them to bring to a halt, for the first time in our history, to America’s most important icon of democratic rule, the peaceful transfer of power.
It makes a scary story but it’s not true. The rioters were nowhere close to succeeding in preventing Biden from becoming President. The idea that a bunch of malcontents dressed up in buffalo horns and body paint, but without so much as a pea shooter as far as I’ve been able to find out, were going to take down American democracy is the purest form of bunk, peddled by those who’re first in line to accuse Republicans of — ready now? — fear mongering.
And it’s not just that the rioters never came close to succeeding (and are now instead a bunch of losing defendants in federal court looking to make excuses). It’s that they would never have made even the headway they did at the Capitol had the police been more assertive from the get-go, better prepared, and more willing to show, and if necessary to use, force. But of course anything resembling a serious use of force was off the table, because — let’s all try to remember — the police in this country were, at the time, in the chilling backwash of the George Floyd Effect. Liberals and not a few libertarians were in full throat, and had been for months, that the cops are brutal, militarized, and too quick to shoot and beat people up.
So in that atmosphere — an atmosphere sponsored mainly by Democrats — what happens? The cops back off. And then what happens? The lawless have a field day. And then what happens? The Democrats complain that “democracy is at risk.”
Beautiful.
Again: The rioters broke the law. Although the police should have acted more forcefully, it wasn’t their idea to storm the Capitol. Those who did, far from being the vanguard of some movement to overthrow democracy, very predictably became a bunch of sheepish, sad-sack, guilty-pleading defendants. At no point, then or now, did they have a realistic chance of even a tactical victory, and still less pose a threat to overthrow the government or end American democracy. And neither, in his increasingly bizarre and increasingly repetitive ranting, does Donald Trump.
Yup
I think William Otis does not understand the significance of January 6th. Congressman Peter Meijer stated that when the House reconvened after the attack, he expected members who had been about to vote against recognizing the electors from Pennsylvania et. al. to reconsider and accept the election results, having seen the consequences of Trump's temper tantrum. Instead, he was shocked when members who had called the Biden electors legitimate told him they were switching sides and would vote against recognizing the electors, because the riot convinced them that voting against Trump's wishes could get them or their families killed.
Using violence to get voters or politicians in a democracy to do something one cannot persuade them to do through the normal political process is the definition of terrorism. This makes the January 6th riot a terrorist attack. In one way it was worse than the September 11th attacks, because it actually succeeded. Al Qaeda wanted to intimidate us into withdrawing forces from the Middle East; it didn't work -- at least not for at least ten years, then in small steps. The January 6th attack, however, actually got congressmen to change their votes out of fear. This makes it the most effective terrorist attack in the history of this country.
So when Mr. Otis writes "And it’s not just that the rioters never came close to succeeding..." I conclude he does not understand the situation. They came damn close to succeeding. The rioters did succeed in changing votes, and they went quite a long way to succeeding in their goal of overturning an election through fear. Imagine if Republicans had a majority in the House -- they weren't far from it -- and more members had shown the cowardice of Meijer's interlocutors. The House could have blocked the election. Imagine if more such rioters had deployed to terrorize state election officials; there were plenty of threats as it is. Even if the public would not accept a claimed Trump victory, blocking popular vote counts in states or electoral vote counts in Congress would push off Biden's inauguration. That would go a long way to stopping democracy.
Perhaps people have forgotten, but among the reason Trump won the nomination in 2016 was threats against Republican convention delegates. As I recall, a wealthy Trump supporter and real estate developer from New York made death threats against Trump opponents from Utah, and one Trump opponent was told by her state chairman that she "would be taken out" if she got in the way. Who knows whether these made the difference in the failed bid for a roll call vote on the rules? The January 6th attack is part of a pattern of terrorism.