The People did not rush to defend Congress

We lower the boom. No civilized country can accept or allow what we saw Wednesday with the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. This was an attack on democracy itself. That is not just a phrase. Rule by the people relies on adherence to law and process. The assault and siege was an attempt to stop the work of democracy by halting the peaceful transfer of presidential power, our crowning glory for more than two centuries.

This was a sin against history.

When something like this happens it tends to be repeated. It is our job to make sure it is not.

And so we should come down like a hammer on all those responsible, moving with brute dispatch against members of the mob and their instigators.--Peggy Noonan Wall Street Journal, January 7,

It has been much remarked during the last few days that during the attack on the US Capitol that law enforcement was, despite the great sacrifice and courage of some, not prepared to defend Congress.* By this I do not just mean the criminal lack of preparation in the light of stated and widely discussed plans of Trumpists to mass on Washington on January 6, and disrupt and overturn the tallying of the votes, but, perhaps, also not to prevent entry into the Capitol. We saw security services fraternize with the protestors who were left free to go. Presumably, as reports suggests, some of this is due to coordination. (For a nice overview that fits my own perception see Kieran Healy.) All of this fits a larger, documented pattern of law enforcement and security services being favorably disposed to Trumpism and white supremacy as distinct from the Constitution.

Less remarked are three frightful further facts about Wednesday.+ First, the people did not rush to US Capitol to defend their representatives. Perhaps this lackluster response is due to Covid or residue complacency about the stability of the constitutional order. But I suspect the deeper problem is the undoubtedly racialized disenfranchisement of the population of Washington DC reveals itself as a terrible Achilles heel of American politics. That is [updated], I am not criticizing any residents of the capital; rather, future Putschists will have noted this structural vulnerability that at the seat of American power, the people may leave the defense of Congress to the armed professionals and so cede power altogether.  

Second, and while some rose to the occasion, setting aside partisan tactics, Congress's complacency about the moment revealed itself in a time of mortal danger. By this I do not just mean the the optics of fleeing, which only emboldens the Putschists. There were no equivalents of General Gutiérrez Mellado, Adolfo Suarez, and Santiago Carrillo standing firm against the intruders. Nor do I just mean the opportunistic instigators (and I include a good chunk of the Republican membership of the House and especially Senators Cruz and Hawley here). But also, and most faithfully, rather, than seeking common cause against those that wish to undermine the experiment in self-government and government by discussion, party leaders of both sides (alas) continue to jockey for tactical advantage or to score rhetorical points against each other. If the Congressional leadership cannot work together now (see my next point) when the institution is under assault, it may be too late. And in a great perversion of language, "unity" now seems to mean, turn a blind eye toward the conspirators.

Third, the most shocking element of recent days is not the sedition in the White House, but that Speaker Pelosi revealed, publically that she called Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, "to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike." While I understand the Speaker's noble impulse to contact the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, she, thereby, continues the slide into an extra-constitutional order (as noted by Elizabeth Saunders) and reminds the military that, henceforth, it holds the keys to power.**

Even if we make it peacefully to a transition to a President Biden, nobody can be sanguine about the next year(s). What the events of the last few years, really decades (since Timothy McVeigh), have shown is an inability by American political leaders to imagine that the danger to liberal democracy comes not just from communism, but also from the violent forms of white nationalism, even fascism. This is, in fact, an effect of how the cold war "disordered" American conservatism (and exiles from various despotic countries that are understandably fearful of socialism). I am quoting from an insightful comment by Jonathan Ainslie on a longer post by Stephen Davies both worth reading.

It is tempting to focus on familiar debates (and fundraising) over the nature of free speech in light of Twitter's decision. And Biden's administration, in so far as it will be energetic at all, will be eager to focus on Covid and the economy, and project a back to normal aura. But these are not normal times. We should not let the clown-esque nature, and the comical costumes, of Wednesday lull us to the  danger.

What is not needed are new laws or new policing or surveillance powers. What is needed is rather  a swift willingness, as Ilya Somin argues, to impeach and convict the President and, thereby, not just deter future Presidents but also prevent future political office for Donald Trump whose actions clearly fit high treason. Start proceedings to expel Senators Hawley and Cruz from the Senate and cover their departure with disgrace. In both cases we can expect them to be replaced by Republicans. And, more painfully yet, what's required is to start a purge (even by way of full retirement with benefits) of law enforcement and security services in order to remove those that have expressed public sympathy for various forms of white nationalism and Trumpism. 

None of these actions would tackle the underlying causes of the rise of Trumpism (about which I speculate in my series on the crisis of liberalism). Back in December 2015, we saw a revolt within the Republican party against their own party-elites. And since 2016 it has been clear that Trump's rise represent a decaying constitutional order (recall). We have been lucky that since his 2016 victory, the cadres that worked for his Presidency were, by and large, willing to adhere to the rule of law and constitutionalism, (even if one can note that the law is often unjust and, as Timothy Snyder notes, game it for their own ends) or not repudiate it at decisive moments. And even critics of federalism must recognize that it, and the integrity of many secretaries of states and election workers (of both parties), saved election day. But if the evident weaknesses diagnosed above are not tackled, we can expect not just better organized putsches, but to see one succeed. 

I am myself not moved much generally by comparisons with Weimar (which really was a perfect storm). The focus on Weimar obscures that liberal democracies collapse more regularly. I think the comparisons with, as Richard Bellamy has noted, Italy in the 1920s, and, as Chris Bertram has noted, France in the 1930s (and 1851/2) are more apt.++ In all such cases the political right split between those that respected constitutional democracy and those that threw their lot in with plebiscite dictatorship (while underestimating the dangers of doing so). And while it is not obvious how to undo the deception of millions, we do know that fatally, in these cases, the forces that might have saved liberal democracy were unwilling to join and protect it and so fell together.

 

*The half-century (not entirely undeserved) mockery of Popper has meant that the person with most clarity about these matters goes largely unread (recall this post from last Fall). Bizarrely, well-meaning civil libertarians are attacking Twitter for banning Trump. We live in strange times when f0r-profit corporations are more awake to the present danger than our representatives and part of the intelligentsia.

+Political scientists have been warning about the possibility of a putsch for quite some time. Because of that, ahead of the election, I started to worry before the election, "that in defeat, which is by no means certain, he may encourage violence." After the election, I warned of his danger: "purposely undermining the credibility of the electoral process risks generating a non-peaceful transfer of power, or even civil war. As I write, he has not conceded the election yet." And by mid-November it was clear he was prepared to be an usurper.

**A discrete phone-call would have been defensible, perhaps. Much better either way, would have been to have Republican congressional leadership in the call.

++I also think we might enter a period not unlike the brief Kerenski era with a regime overwhelmed by challenges.

1. The updated sentence reflects discussion with Eric Winsberg and Martin Lenz.

Comments

[Howard Berman]

Hi I suspect the people didn't rush to the scene of the crime to defend democracy because our lives, political too, are not in the publci square but rather online.
When John Lennon was assassinated for instance all my school mates rushed from Brooklyn by subway to Strawberry Fields- there is no street life in the old sense for people to rush there- the Trump supporters were not in contrast spontaneous but orchestrated

[Aaron Lercher]

You are describing a situation in which security forces are too compromised to intervene either to defend institutions vigorously or else to act overtly to overthrow them: security forces are politically paralyzed. Also, they are not fighting among themselves.

I participated in a defense of Buffalo NY institutions by self-selected citizens in 1992. The mayor (a rightwing populist) had invited rightwing anti-abortion protesters from throughout the US to come to Buffalo to blockade abortion clinics in April that year.

The scale on each side was hundreds, not (tens of?) thousands. Even so, the degree of preparation, organization, and motivation needed for the defenders to succeed was very high.

Crucially, there was the political hurdle of deciding in advance that the local police were too compromised to be reliable (which seemed obvious to me at the time). The people who made that judgment were quite far to the left, splitting the abortion rights advocates. They turned out to be correct in that case. Only a small faction grasped the moral imperative Popper proposes, and we needed to constitute an organized group by splitting from established groups.

Is this kind of situation, on a larger scale, likely in Washington DC? There would need to be continued political paralysis by security forces in order to leave an opening for leftwing defenders to confront rightwing attackers.

Also, leftwing escalation would risk uniting security forces and rightwing elements against them.

[Aaron Lercher]

What I wrote earlier might have suggested that the leftwing defenders of Buffalo institutions remained marginal after April 1992. No. The rightwing populist mayor did not run for another term. The next mayor supported abortion rights. When other anti-abortion blockades were proposed, these were met by a show of force by state-level and local police.