Three Years Later and Multiple Proceedings: Jan 6th Apologies and Still Hill Standing

 I looked back at my post three years ago, the day after Jan 6th.  With so many people revising their views, hey, it was not an insurrection, just a rambunctious group of FBI-led rioters, I thought I would see where I stand now after investigations, trials, and finally the application of the 14th amendment to he who can't be held accountable.

Before getting into this, one key difference between learning and bad faith is that while both can cause someone to take a difference stance three years later, the former is about learning new information and revising beliefs, and the latter is about taking whatever is a convenient stance no matter the previous one.  A bit of a subtweet in all of that.

Anyhow, looking back, I was the most wrong about the capitol cops.  They were far from complicit, as many paid a huge cost, including the ultimate price, for doing their jobs.  Not much shirking that day.  What we saw initially where cops cleverly misdirecting the insurrectionists away from the vulnerable Senators and Congresspeople.  

I am less certain of my second stance--people referred to this as a manifestation of fascism.  I pushed back because I didn't think and I still don't think Trump has a coherent ideology.  Not all racist autocrats are fascists, with fascism having broader implications for how to organize society.  There are enough people around Trump and enough forces in the US who are not just pushing for autocracy and for white supremacy but also reordering institutions to support, yes, the master race and master religion, that it is close enough to count.  To be clear, to me, Trump is still not thinking about putting the nation over individual interests, but rather himself over everything.  The ultimate expression and empowering of narcissism does not make Trump a Nazi.  But he is changing permission structures to allow Nazis to flourish.  So, there is a fascist movement complete, yes, with swatiskas and Nazi flags.  When they tell us who they are, we probably should be believe them (applies to occupiers of Ottawa as well).

The third stance got the most heat--that it was not a coup.  Folks were upset because it seemed like I was not taking the event seriously... as if a coup is far more serious than an insurrection.   But I also underestimated how much of a role Trump and his team played in inciting the insurrection--that it was part of a sustained effort, a conspiracy out in the public eye for the most part, to keep Trump in power despite losing the election.  Which made it an autogolpe.  Which, yes, is a kind of a coup--a self-coup--an effort by those in power to usurp the powers of other institutions so they can perpetuate their reign, their regime.  All of the investigations, all of the incriminating stuff Trump has said, has made it clear that he caused the insurrection--it would not have happened without his sustained efforts.  I am sure we will learn more once the trial starts.  

But, yes, I will resist using "coup" without modifications because of two key parts of general definition: coups are usually focused on changing who is in power--hence the need for autogolpe or self-coup--and they involve some component of the security services.  In this case, the military was not involved.  It is still not entirely clear whether we dodged literal bullets by not bringing the National Guard in earlier.  But the point remains--the danger, the threat, the violence, the effort to prevent the transfer of power were not coming from the uniformed armed folks.  A significant number of veterans involved in the insurrection is disturbing but do not make it a coup.

Folks have and will accuse me of pedantry on this.  I tend to speak loosely and am not a definitions-enforcer, but on this hill, I (along with many folks who study civil-military relations) remain.  Again, it shifts attention in the wrong direction, and it does not mean the event itself was not serious.

My post also called for accountability--that folks had to go to trial and to lose their jobs.  We have had a fair amount of that, but the wheels of justice has been grinding too slowly when it comes to Trump and his minions.  There is very much a deadline.... especially as the GOP seeks to game the institutions governing the next election.

We should remain outraged--that something unprecedented happened and it was caused by a sore loser who should never have become president in the first place.  But those seeking power didn't care about personal responsibility or values, so they supported a candidate who was so very disqualified then and then proved it through how he governed and then again with his refusal to accept losing.  So, yes, the 14th amendment should be applied to Trump, but will it stick?  Damned if I know.