Opinion

Trumpism without Trump: Maybe he's beginning to fade

Donald Trump's recent endorsement struggles (most notably in Georgia) in the weeks leading up to House Jan. 6 hearings have led to renewed speculation that the former president is losing his grip on the Republican Party. In fact, recent reporting suggests that several prominent Republicans are likely to run for president in 2024, whether or not Trump himself launches a third campaign. But let's put that in the proper context: Trump's oft-repeated Big Lie about the stolen 2020 election has been called the new "Lost Cause" (in literally hundreds of articles) but it's only one facet of a broader mindset that has moved to the center of GOP politics — and none of that is going away, regardless of what happens to Trump as a person or a political figure.

This article first appeared on Salon.

Keep reading... Show less

Elegy for a lost America: Will the Jan. 6 committee really change anything?

On cable news they called Thursday night's first hearing of the House Jan. 6 committee "somber," and "powerful." I listened instead of watched, driving through the darkening early summer evening on the first day of a cross-country drive with my 13-year-old. An elegant old road, Route 20 across upstate New York. Farms and fields and haunted Victorians, broken silos and dead motels, their doors banged open amidst a pale tide of Queen Anne's lace and purple lupine and the ghost yellow false bloom of wild parsnip, which stings before it burns. So maybe it was the fact that via satellite radio I could hear but not see the presentation, or maybe it was the setting, but to my ear the tone of the first hearing was elegiac. A lament, an expression of longing, a wish that it had been and will be otherwise, threaded with the knowledge that it likely will not. There's little chance the hearings will result in even some small justice, much less bind the nation back into the functioning democracy that in truth it never has quite been.

"An audience of one," said CNN's Anderson Cooper, an echo of the phrase applied so often to the former president that New York Times critic James Poniewozik titled his book on the 45th president "Audience of One: Donald Trump, Television, and the Fracturing of America." But according to Cooper the "one" on Thursday was Merrick Garland. Who, it was reported, would watch "as much as he was able." Perhaps he had another obligation. Or maybe he just wanted to catch up on "Stranger Things."

Keep reading... Show less

Wisconsin 2020 election 'fraud' investigator held in contempt of court

It’s not really a coincidence that, the morning after the first, explosive public hearing by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman — the man appointed by Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to lead the partisan probe of the 2020 election in Wisconsin — was held in contempt of court.
Gableman’s contempt for the rule of law and the institutions of our democracy, which he demonstrated in his bombastic, sarcastic performance in Dane County circuit court on Friday, is the same style of demagoguery practiced by Donald Trump.

Like Trump, Gableman is a narcissist and a bully whose taboo-breaking nastiness — posturing as an injured hero of a popular movement who is somehow standing up for the little guy by displaying sneering disrespect for public officials and the courts — is part of a more general, dangerous trend.

Trump, according to House investigators, encouraged a murderous mob to attack the U.S. Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. Gableman has furthered Trump’s efforts with his baseless investigation, pushing the discredited idea that there was massive voter fraud in Wisconsin. While leading his publicly funded probe that has cost Wisconsin taxpayers almost a million dollars, he has refused to turn over records — the issue for which Judge Frank Remington held him in contempt.

Keep reading... Show less

Big boys playing dress-up: Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are dangerous — and deeply embarrassing

The hearings of the House Jan. 6 committee that began on Thursday night presented plenty of evidence of plain old-fashioned wrongdoing, infantile fantasizing by people old enough to know better, and hundreds of instances of people committing overt criminally indictable offenses at the behest of a president of the United States. But the evidence showed something else, too: an entire political party that has lost the capacity to be embarrassed.

There is so much evidence of behavior and attitudes that are embarrassing that you hardly know where to begin: with the whiny look on Jared Kushner's face and his whiny tone of voice as he described the White House counsel's threats to resign as "whiny"? The aw-shucks shrug of the shoulders given by former Attorney General William Barr, who was the highest law enforcement official in the land, as he explained — if that is even the word — resigning his office because he had finally had enough of what he called "bullshit"? Committee vice-chair Liz Cheney's lengthy recitation of all the phone calls Donald Trump didn't make and orders he refused to issue while a violent attempt was made to overthrow the government of which he was in charge?

Keep reading... Show less

The January 6th Committee appears to have a target audience of one

The J6 committee last night focused largely on the role of violent rightwing insurgents in the former president’s attempted coup d'état. The left-liberal reaction, if you’ll permit synthesis, had been convinced the Democrats once again botched it. Donald Trump should’ve been center stage, they said, not no-name already-indicted whack-jobs.

Well, he was center stage, but even if he had not been, critics overlooked the utility of raising awareness of the lengths some Americans will go to repeal products of the democratic process.

Keep reading... Show less

How progressives lost the 'woke' narrative – and what they can do to reclaim it from the right-wing

The first novel in recorded history was published in Japan. It was called The Tale of Genji. It was completed in the early 11th-century by a woman who was later given the name of Murasaki Shikibu. A few years ago, I found out that printing existed in Asia hundreds of years before Johannes Gutenberg assembled his printing press in Europe.

These are facts I never learned in college, let alone K-12. All tended to focus on the Gutenberg story when the history of reading and printing came up. If I suggested that we should teach this in school, many today would call me “woke.” And it wouldn’t only be folks on the right.

Many on the left who embrace it’s-class-not-race politics, and who say they value historicism and material reality, would assert that merely broaching these facts (whether true or not) can only be, in essence, about representation, “political correctness” and “identity politics.”

It’s interesting how these folks say woke, often with a scoff.

Though without the right’s disgust, the overlap on the left is “this argument is unserious and you don’t have to engage with it.”

In an article for The Nation, I explained the Black communal origin of woke in a time before it became a catchall anti-progressive buzzword:

“Woke” was used in the Black community to convey the need to be socially aware of anti-Black oppressive systems, ideas, etc. in order to at least safely navigate through them — and at most dismantle them. A simple analogy would be the code in The Matrix — just knowing it’s there can help a character survive. Woke could range from James Baldwin in “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” or Laurence Fishburne’s character yelling Wake up! in Spike Lee’s School Daze, or Georgia Anne Muldrow saying “Woke is definitely a Black experience.”

Black people have also used woke in (often, but not exclusively) Afro-centric spiritual, cosmological or metaphysical discourse. The topics could be anything from “opening your third eye,” staying attuned to the energy of the people around you, or more charged discussions like not praying to white Jesus or what is the “correct” religion for pan-African people to have.

Now woke can mean anything.

Calling a person by their chosen pronouns? Woke.

A history teacher teaching the truth about slavery? Woke.

Critical of Dave Chappelle’s comedy or Joe Rogan’s podcast? Woke.

An interracial couple in a Pepsi commercial? Woke.

A Black character in Jurassic Park? Woke.

Asking why you can’t make a Black character in Elden Ring? Woke.

According to US Senator Ron Johnson, wokeness is responsible for the Uvalde massacre. This absurdity comes from the right, but some on the left have been just as reactionary toward “wokeness.”

Many on the right and left argue that progressives have been poisoned by the ideology of group essentialism. They say progressive are rejecting individualism and forcing identity politics on the masses.

A more sophisticated leftist critique argues that “wokeness” is another formulation of consumer capitalism preventing class solidarity.

You’d think the anti-woke left would spot the right’s game. You’d think they’d have the tools to disentangle what is good faith and bad faith.

The right often reduces everything on the left to “Marxism.” I hope most folks know that’s silly. However, when the right says everything progressive is “woke,” many on the left, who argue against reductionism and essentialism, end up becoming reductionist and essentialist.

There’s a part of the left that offhandedly dismisses the historical processes and material reality that spur people to galvanize democratic political power through groups that are not solely based on class.

When it comes to politics, there are good reasons why groups (for example African Americans) have had to wield power collectively. When it comes to education, this part of the left often reduces progressive historicism to feeble diversity and inclusion initiatives.

In doing this, they dismiss the possibility that to a teacher (progressive or otherwise), the operating principle underlying the best teaching is teaching the best obtainable version of the truth — something well in keeping with the left’s propensity to historicize and contextualize.

Progressivism has excesses. It can become akin to a cultural bureaucracy. The phrase “cancel culture” makes me want to sigh for an hour. But to the extent that it exists, progressives have their share of responsibility.

But in an effort to distance themselves from “liberals” and “progressives,” too many of the left uncritically accept the right’s castigation of “wokeness” and are often blind to the reactionary logic they would disavow in a different context.

Jan. 6 committee puts Proud Boys at center of Trump's plot to overthrow the election

Most of the media coverage of this year's first major public hearing by the House Jan. 6 committee focused on the visceral horrors of the day, and the committee's firm conviction that this was what Donald Trump wanted to happen. Certainly, the newly released video footage was wrenching, and especially when Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards sat quietly through footage of her own assault at the hands of rioters. The committee also laid out the case that Trump was gleeful about the insurrection and, as Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said, told aides and associates that the rioters "were doing what they should be doing."

That case was presented in a compelling fashion, but for most people who have been following the reporting about what happened — and particularly Trump's role in it — very little of it was new. What was likely the biggest revelation of the night, however, was the central role played by the Proud Boys in the committee's narrative of the events of Jan. 6. Using footage and testimony from documentary filmmaker Nick Quested, the committee presented the case that the right-wing men's group, along with the similarly organized Oath Keepers, functioned as a vanguard that led the way for the rest of the mob, incited by Trump himself, that would storm the Capitol.

Keep reading... Show less

Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards reminds us what heroism looks like

Every Republican who’s ever denied, or tried to minimize, the hideously destructive reality of the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, should be required to sit and listen to the testimony of Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards.

And if it takes strapping them into a chair, and propping their eyelids open, “A Clockwork Orange” style, then so be it.

Keep reading... Show less

Trump's sedition: George Washington warned us in 1796

“I have said that any man who attempted by force or unparliamentary disorder to obstruct or interfere with the lawful count of the electoral vote should be lashed to the muzzle of a twelve-pounder gun and fired out of a window.” —General Winfield Scott, 1861

Last night the January 6th Committee’s co-chair Liz Cheney told us that “Representative Scott Perry sought a pardon” along with “multiple other members of Congress” for their participation in the attempted coup, their sedition against the United States of America.

Keep reading... Show less

Liz Cheney hit her GOP colleagues with a deeply wounding statement at explosive Jan. 6 hearing

Thursday night's public hearing by the House Jan. 6 committee made one thing very clear: Donald Trump is personally in the crosshairs. They are coming for him with receipts, in the form of testimony from some of his closest aides and allies. The committee seems prepared to destroy any pretense that Trump was a casual bystander to the insurrection. In fact, its members are building a case that he actively encouraged it, and that by refusing to take action for many hours that day, he was an actual accomplice.

The committee plans to going to knock down the Big Lie by answering a big legal and moral question: Did Trump know he had lost the election? The answer is clear: Yes, he did. Everyone around him told him so. His former aide and current associate Jason Miller testified that their own number-crunchers told him he had lost. Attorney General Bill Barr told him that spreading the lie that the election was stolen was "bullshit." His own daughter, Ivanka Trump, testified that she believed what Barr said. And we learned all of this from hearing their very own words in videotaped testimony, which made it all the more powerful.

Keep reading... Show less

Liz Cheney to GOP and America: Trump did it, and we're coming for him

Thursday night's public hearing by the House Jan. 6 committee made one thing very clear: Donald Trump is personally in the crosshairs. They are coming for him with receipts, in the form of testimony from some of his closest aides and allies. The committee seems prepared to destroy any pretense that Trump was a casual bystander to the insurrection. In fact, its members are building a case that he actively encouraged it, and that by refusing to take action for many hours that day, he was an actual accomplice.

The committee plans to going to knock down the Big Lie by answering a big legal and moral question: Did Trump know he had lost the election? The answer is clear: Yes, he did. Everyone around him told him so. His former aide and current associate Jason Miller testified that their own number-crunchers told him he had lost. Attorney General Bill Barr told him that spreading the lie that the election was stolen was "bullshit." His own daughter, Ivanka Trump, testified that she believed what Barr said. And we learned all of this from hearing their very own words in videotaped testimony, which made it all the more powerful.

Keep reading... Show less

American democracy must be vigorously fought for because the Jan. 6 hearings may change nothing

The hearings held in the House last night to investigate the attempted coup on January 6 are vital if we have any hope of holding elected officials accountable – but they are unlikely to change minds.

The truth is the evidence presented at these hearings doesn’t matter. The entire country knows Donald Trump and other Republican politicians were directly involved in trying to overturn a legal election.

Keep reading... Show less

To indict Donald Trump, prosecutors will need to prove intent. Well, here it comes.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle for prosecutors eventually to clear in order to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election will be proving his intent. As we explain in a new report, the Jan. 6 committee hearings that begin this week, together with what we know already, should provide more than enough proof to establish the former president's corrupt mental state as he attempted to overturn the election.

In criminal law, "intent" refers to someone's state of mind at the time of their criminal action. When proving intent, you need to show that they intended to do the thing that is a crime. Because it is rare to have direct evidence of what a person is actually thinking, prosecutors usually infer intent from the facts and circumstances surrounding a person's actions.

Keep reading... Show less