Last Jan. 6, hundreds of rioters (a group from a larger peaceful protest, in case that matters at all) stormed the U.S. Capitol. They briefly disrupted the counting of electoral votes and the certification of Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election.
The rioters all deserve to be punished — I’d say throw the book at them, especially the violent ones. But there’s a big effort here to build this up into something it wasn’t. This event was the talk on several of the Sunday shows today, and it’s the subject of a bizarrely hysterical New York Times editorial that asserts, “Every day is Jan. 6 now.” Sorry, but it just isn’t. Most people have moved on, and with good reason.
Lawless violence occurred that day. Fortunately, the perpetrators of that violence and lawlessness are facing justice. More than 700 people have been charged with a range of crimes, from trespassing on federal grounds to resisting arrest to assault (against police and a few journalists) to assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon. Some have already been convicted and sentenced.
Guess what no one was charged with? “Insurrection,” or “treason,” or anything like it for that matter. That’s because these idiots didn’t take part in an “insurrection” by any reasonable legal definition. The use of this word is a pejorative political description of what was certainly a lawless, violent, and unfortunate event, but it just isn’t that. Democrats just can’t stop using the word, no matter how inapt, because it has become a political football for them, a new “bloody shirt” to wear. This is apparently the issue they plan to run on in 2022. (Good luck with that, by the way.)
Some of those who stormed the Capitol probably just got swept away in the moment when they saw the thin layer of security in place that day break down. The first offenders successfully rushed in and climbed up and they zealously followed. But yes, I don’t doubt that many of them hoped, in vain, that by storming the U.S. Capitol, they could stop the counting of electoral votes in Joe Biden’s favor. That’s the best argument for saying this was an “insurrection.”
But two words here are key: “in vain.” You cannot overthrow the U.S. government by merely occupying — even occupying with violent force — the House or Senate chamber, any more than you can do it by burning down the federal courthouse in Portland with federal officials inside. The rioters don’t get a vote in Congress because they physically arrive there — not even a heckler’s vote. Congress can reconvene anywhere it likes to do its job on its own timetable.
So it’s not that they didn’t succeed in overthrowing the government — it’s that they never tried anything that could bring about that result.
And curiously, nobody seems genuinely interested in the one reform that could have easily prevented the spectacle of Jan. 6.
The rioters disrupted a ceremonial counting of votes that was going to happen no matter what, either there or elsewhere. The only four actual riot casualties (I understand but reject the arguments for counting police deaths unrelated to the riot and suicides that took place days or months later) were of protesters or rioters. Two of the four rioters who died had coincidental heart attacks, and one overdosed on drugs. So really, only one of these — the police shooting death of Ashli Babbit, later ruled as justified — should count as a true riot death.
I’m glad to see the perpetrators held accountable, but I just don’t see the reason for the hysteria. This isn’t some kind of ongoing threat to democracy. It was an event that took place on a particular day, when a bunch of stupid people briefly disrupted a session of Congress and will hopefully face just punishments for their individual roles.
As for President Donald Trump, perhaps the January 6 Commission will find evidence that he was part of a secret plot behind this lawlessness. It certainly hasn’t presented such evidence yet. But contrary to what seems to be the prevailing argument, his (ridiculous) election denialism does not in itself constitute an incitement to violence. Election denialism is quite common among high-profile politicians (most prominently in recent times in Stacey Abrams and Hillary Clinton), and such denialism usually doesn’t “erode democracy” or lead to any violence whatsoever. So it’s not like we can say from the evidence currently available that he should have seen this coming just because he made a fool out of himself and refused to accept the election result.
Trump’s rejection of the 2020 election result is an embarrassment to him and his supporters. And, of course, it wasn’t a first offense for Trump, who claimed baselessly that there had been millions of illegal votes in the election he actually won in 2016. But I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for the New York Times editors’ position that it is an ongoing threat to democracy. It just doesn’t add up.
