#377 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday June 14)
Good morning,
People have had a lot to say about the January 6th Committee’s first session.
ACCOUNTING FOR THE INSURRECTION
What a shock, disgrace and warning. Most people I know believe the hearings are instructive in reminding us just how fragile a democracy can be and how under fire it is. Many, like Sue Meltzer are optimistic that the hearings will be instructive, yet remain shocked about the revelations: “I want to have hope that it WILL make some difference. Watching it last night was so depressing. To actually hear the crowd repeat Trump’s demands, to know that Bannon warned of this (happily), to see it so very organized, is depressing. I wonder if Trump is still talking to his daughter. All Trump cares about is himself, period!”
My response: My optimism that the evidence is now out there is tempered by shock and the fear this likely is not the end to this type of behavior (both the encouragement toward violence and the violence itself). The winner of the latest “Rationalization Sweepstakes” is Kellyanne Conway, who last weekend likened Trump’s comment to go to the capitol and “fight like hell” to those the encouragement of a football coach before the big game. She maintained it’s the same as “What every college football coach says to the guys that are taking the field.” Does she appreciate that the football coach is sending people onto a field of play with rules, referees, and protective gear, where the only thing on the line is a game? Leading up the January 6th rioting, the stakes were just a tiny bit more significant.
Some people will never see it. Harvey Englander commented on the notable absence of Fox in covering these historic events: “Last night’s hearing also put to rest the lie that Fox News is a separate entity from Fox commentators like Tucker Carlson. The News Division had an obligation to televise the hearings and they chose not to bring their viewers an unfiltered lens into this stain on American democracy…”
My response: Harvey has hit upon the disbelief many of us share that Fox decided not to air the hearing. It was my daughter, Lauren, who first articulated to me that the power and responsibility of journalists is not only in WHAT they say, but WHICH stories they choose to report. Not only did Fox not cover the hearings, but the Tucker Carlson show elected not to run commercials, presumably so that their viewers might not be tempted to flip channels and see what all the fuss is about on another station. As Steven Colbert noted, “the first rule of any cult is to bar the doors, so no one can get out.”
This is as much about the future as what happened in the past. I had made a comment last week that I fear people on the fence don’t care about the Committee’s proceedings. Dana Gordon says that doesn’t matter: “We don't need to change minds. We need people who agree, who have money and influence to get involved. Hollywood, corporations, and CEOs need to speak up. Normal people have to decide to pay attention, volunteer and knock on doors. People have to worry about democracy.”
My response: Dana’s right on. The hearing demonstrated that this was part of an orchestrated plan. That orchestration continues in the voter suppression and the effort to stock Secretaries of State and election commissions in swing states with Trump-loyalists and propounders of the “big lie” for the next election. We should be very concerned that the legitimate votes of the people will be overturned by zealots with an agenda.
Truth and decency. Tony Canzonerri takes a more existential view of the whole matter, namely, “Will factual truth and moral decency prevail in November over the blind self-interest of Republican leaders and voters who…take out their anger over inflation on the only political leaders (Democrats, Liz Chaney etc.) who speak truth and moral sensibility?
Unless and until political consequences prove the ineffectiveness of the Republican propaganda machine, none of our real problems can be solved. Climate change, racism, gun violence, regression of women and minority rights, etc. will continue to become proxies for creating divisiveness in the…retention of Power.”
My response: Until Republican leadership stands up and says “enough” and until that leadership helps their constituencies understand the basic underpinnings of our democracy, and supports belief in that system, their followers (who at this point are leading the debate) will fall deeper into a dark hole, dragging them along.
ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
A dear friend of mine has a different point of view: “It’s amazing to me that two men could have such a nice friendship…and sometimes see things so differently. The January 6 debacle has a horrific event on so many counts, but the January 6 Committee is nothing but a partisan sham. Its lack of credibility will never yield the results you would hope to achieve. Consider this”:
MY RESPONSE
On this, I beg to differ. The Committee is a necessary exercise of our legislative obligation to determine the facts and prevent such events from happening again. They do not have the power to indict…only to shine a bright light on those involved, the events that occurred, and the statements of those involved. And let’s be clear, no less than then-Attorney General Bill Barr called the President’s statements about the election “bullshit” and Ivanka Trump agreed with Mr. Barr’s conclusions.
The Republican argument to disregard the Committee’s findings does not rest on the thoughtful response to the films, the physical evidence, and the interviews. Rather, it rests upon the whole process being unfair because the members of the Committee were hand-picked by Nancy Pelosi. They have a legitimate complaint that the Committee’s membership is biased. But they had their chance. Kevin McCarthy attempted to load the Committee with people who were clear Trumpists and supporters of the “big lie,” who would be obstructionists, dissembling and acting like Trump’s defense counsel. Pelosi asked him to nominate other, less partisan, Republicans. McCarthy refused to choose Republican members who were not as attached to Trump and might actually try to seek the truth. So Pelosi went forward anyway with the only two Republicans who would agree to participate.
And let’s just remember that Liz Cheney is not an ideologue of the left. Her views on many issues are anathema to most Democrats. She is not in this to bring down the Republican/Conservative values to which she adheres. She is speaking in calm, measured tones about the dangers presented to our democracy and the facts surrounding this attack. Whatever one might say about the partisanship of the two impeachment prosecutions (which were, regardless of the partisanship, completely justified), no one can accuse Liz Cheney of political partisanship as a motivating factor here.
Most (if not all) of the Committee members were in the Capitol on the fateful day. The evidence of the interrelationship of the organized insurrectionists, the President’s advisors and lawyers, the President himself and members of Congress is incontrovertible. The statements of the police, the preplanning by the insurrectionists who were there the day before, the President’s indifference to the carnage--all of this is a blot on our democracy and institutions and portends political unrest and violence in the future.
We all need to be reminded of the precariousness of our democracy and the continuing risk of organized political violence and the clearly orchestrated efforts to circumvent democratic elections in the future. They are tied together. It's all on film. The Republican defense seems to be that of the country western song lyric when a woman finds her husband in flagrante delicto with another woman, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: