American Jihad

American Jihad is a phrase often used to describe terrorists living in the US who are sympathetic to, aligned with, and in some cases coordinated by, Islamic terrorist organizations. 

America now needs to confront the fact that there are groups within its borders who might more properly be termed American Jihadi. These are the right wing violent extremists, seditionists, and anti-government insurrectionists who came to Washington for Insurrection Day. 

Like their Islamic brethren, they advocate the use of violence to achieve their ends, seek to terrorize democratically elected officials, and rely on the same recruitment and indoctrination methods. They push the same buttons with very similar groups of psychologically vulnerable people; those who feel a sense of grievance, of being somehow left behind, who are angry and restful, who feel they haven't been treated fairly. By exploiting those feelings, amplifying their fears and feeding them distortions and lies, local American Jihadi leaders build groups that can be easily activated to acts of violence as 6/1 made all too clear. 

And like their Islamic counterparts, they are egged on by public figures who encourage and condone them while managing to remain above the fray and our of reach of the law. Using veiled threats that can't legally be used as evidence of sedition, these public figures, who American Jihadis worship with cult-like unquestioning reverence, orchestrate their activities from their bully pulpits and, disturbingly, still see nothing untoward in their actions. 

Joe Biden themed his run for the presidency as a battle for the soul of the nation; it looks as though a sizable proportion of one party's elected officials, in refusing to hold those responsible for inciting Insurrection Day accountable, have already made their no-refund-no-returns deals with the devil. 

On the way to Crazy Town

In a rational society, the likes of Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Lauren Boebert, with their adherence to bizarre and dangerous flights of fancy, would be put into straight jackets, given a double doses of Thorazine, and confined to a padded cell as a danger to others. 

But instead, for some inexplicable reason, here they are elected to Congress. 

Tom McClintock, CA 4^th district, noted that "every party has its lunatic fringe"—which is true—but few countries have well established major political parties a majority of whose elected representatives are whack-jobs and lunatics, or at least are indistinguishable from them.  

The end of the experiment

The "Great American [Democratic] Experiment" is nearing its end. Ironically, its demise has been brought about by the two things that seemed to be its central pillars: a laissez-faire approach to free enterprise and technological innovation. 

Technology has helped lower the entry barriers to broadcasting which has allowed niche players to target market segments. Free enterprise has allowed the news to become the "news business" rather than the Fourth Estate. And because of its love of unfettered free enterprise these new targeted "news" entities  have been unregulated, allowing them to disseminate lies and conspiracy theories that have undermined the foundations of society, namely trust in its essential institutions. Technology, here specifically the Internet and social media platforms, has exacerbated the problem by channeling communication into separate echo-chambers that are disconnected from each other and, in many cases, from fact. 

As has been noted in earlier posts (2016, 2017), absent trust in the essential institutions that allow society to function, it will ultimately collapse. We are now on the edge of a precipice with a clear choice ahead; we can decide to give up on the absolutist notion of freedom of speech Fox bangs on about and choose to regulate news organizations in such a way as to ensure they provide a useful function to society rather than a destructive one. 

And we must not be shy about calling out patently stupid ideas when we see them; one may usefully debate whether evidence supports the proposition that income tax cuts spur economic growth or that immigration depressed wages, but there is no good reason to join a discussion in which one party claims the other is part of a secret society engaged in Satanic child sex trafficking ring run from a Pizza parlor (or whatever  the latest nonsense is).  Those who believe that nonsense deserve some pity, medical treatment for insanity (fortunately covered under Obama care); but not a seat at the table.

Somewhere between rebellion and protest

This year has seen its share of violent protest. But the one that will cement Trump's legacy as the worst president the US has had was the storming of the Capitol on January 6th, "Insurrection Day". 

Much hand-wringing is going on about the security failure that allowed a violent mob to infiltrate the House and Senate chambers and ransack Congressional offices.  Those who see the event as an organized attack think the Capitol police and the Sergeants at Arms were to blame. Others see the event rather as a group of fervent Trump supporters, whipped into a frenzy by the Trumps, Giuliani, Guilfoyle and others, who collectively and spontaneously decided to turn a rally into a violent protest.  

The reality probably lies between those two points of view. On the one hand there was clearly no clear over-arching organization; once inside the Capitol many were simply wandering around like tourists; some were acting out their rage; and others, like the twist-tie guy, had clearly come with some sort of plan, although not well thought through.  Had they been better organised the rioters might well have assassinated a large number of Democratic members of the House and the Senate, and perhaps some GOP members they thought had betrayed the cause besides. As terrible as the events were, we can at least be thankful that this was a hodgepodge of grievance filled groups that coordinated internally, but not externally. 

That being said these groups are not going to fade away with the change in administrations and they will  surely see the benefit of forming a broader coalition of insurrectionists. That being the case, the country's law enforcement and security apparatus needs to take domestic terrorism much more seriously than it has.  

I suspect they have not, in part, because of "American Exceptionalism"; while Washington today looks like the Green Zones in Kabul or Baghdad, few in law enforcement were willing to admit that the gravest threat to American democracy was from Americans at home rather than from abroad. Yet what we are now confronting is a domestic jihad; groups that are indoctrinating like minded, disaffected and angry people to join their violent cause. 

Until the country finds a way of defusing the righteous anger that so many see as crucial to motivating their supporters and close the gap between the two parallel informational universes in which we now live, the problem will not dissipate. Without common cause to focus our attention on a single unifying objective unrest and violence will rise in intensity and sophistication.  

 "American Exceptionalism" contributed to the country's failure to understand the tribal and religious jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a consequence, struggled to contain it. As The Troubles show all to well, resentment and grievance persists across generations. Lessons for dealing with terrorism have been learned the hard way by the US Army and the Marines in the country's two ongoing foreign wars. It's time to bring those lessons to bear at home. 

The "Next Big Lie"

The media has taken to referring to Trump's claim that the election was stolen from him as "the Big Lie". Although Trump didn't get the outcome he wanted from telling the Big Lie, he did achieve something, arguably almost as destructive. He proved that you can convince almost half the American population of something that no evidence supports if you tell it often enough and loudly enough.  said that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. 

Certainly, that's not a completely new revelation; Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, relied on the ability to convince people willing to accept his leader's message with a concerted propaganda campaign; George Orwell wrote about its implications in his fictional novel about an authoritarian regime in 1984. But in the "land of the free" it had widely been thought that this could never happen here. It turns out those who held that article of faith, perhaps another by-product of the doctrine of American Exceptionalism, were quite wrong. 

If Trump has taught the GOP, now re-made in his image, anything, its that if the lie is brazen and bold enough, and sufficiently conspiratorial, those who want to believe him can be convinced of absolutely anything. 

So prepare for the next even bigger lie which will be: "while those attending the rally at the Ellipse were Trump's supporters, the people who attacked the capital were actually ANTIFA and BLM who had mounted a carefully planned false flag operation". (And if Sidney Powell gets in on the act, it will all have been coordinated by China and Hugo Chavez, Big Tech, and a communist child sex ring). 

In a way this is completely inevitable. For those who were all in on Trump's first Big Lie, given the clear evidence - in plain sight no less - that he had prepared the ground and, while stopping sufficiently short of the line to avoid be criminally culpable, orchestrated Insurrection Day, coming to terms with that would be unbearable. Since adhering to the Big lie was fundamentally an act of faith, like religion, loosing it will be excruciating. Far easier to accept the Next Big Lie that allows them not to confront the first.

Every movement has a lunatic fringe

As he voted to give Trump as pass on his incendiary incitement insurrection, Tom McClintock (R-CA) said "if we impeached every politician who gave a fiery speech to a crowd of partisans, this Capitol would be deserted".  Our of context that may be defensible, but here, context matters. He is in fact saying that were Congress to adhere to the same standard of not inciting a riot against the very government of which members are a part and which they have sworn to uphold, the House would empty; to that my reply is "and a good thing too". Then, those irresponsible firebrands who disingenuously cloak themselves in the mantle of the First Amendment, would be replaced by representatives who took their responsibilities toward maintenance of good public order and not inciting violence a little more seriously that McClintock appears to. He also noted that "every movement has a lunatic fringe"; it's a pity he appears to be part of it.  

A new two party system

No, this is not a post about procedural reform or other changes to the electoral system; just a snide observation that our two party system now comprises the Democratic Party and the Anti-democratic party, 197 of whose members felt that incitement to insurrection did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". 

Remember this?

Tired of too much winning yet?

Guy Fawkes

The Washington Post reported this morning: "Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) delivered a defiant speech Wednesday in opposition to Trump’s impeachment, warning Democrats that the president will become “a martyr” if they vote to impeach him for a second time."  

To Biggs, I'd ask: "how is Guy Fawkes remembered?"  

Fawkes, who was one of the conspirators who tried to blow up the British Houses of Parliament in 1605, was executed. Every year on what is generally referred to as "fireworks night", "bonfire night" or "Guy Fawkes night", millions of Brits place his effigy on a bonfire and set fire to it, while children dance around the fire chanting "Remember, remember, the fifth of November; gunpowder, treason and plot". That episode and one of its perpetrators, seared into the public memory through tradition, has not been forgotten in over four centuries.     

Yes, Trump will certainly be remembered, but it's very unlikely that many will remember him as a martyr. 

Land of the free, home of the not so brave

In a democracy, votes, not the threat of violence, should determine how the country is governed. The 197 Republican members of House of Representative voting not to impeach Trump today appear not to have understood that basic tenet. 

No doubt they will complain that this misrepresents their position; that they are simply reflecting the views of those who voted for them. There are two problem with that argument. 

First, the reason that so many of their constituents do not think impeachment is appropriate is that those very same representatives had been telling them for weeks that the election was stolen and so Trump's claim he did nothing wrong in inciting insurrection falls on fertile soil. From there, one can only conclude those representative knew what they were saying was false and lied or had themselves fallen for the lie. In either case, be it lack of integrity or lack of intelligence and judgement, they are unfit to serve in Congress.  

Second, in a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, those representative have agency. If they believe what they are being asked to do is wrong they should vote their consciences. Indeed even before we got to this point, they could, indeed should, have told those they represent the truth - that the courts concluded there was no widespread voter fraud or any irregularities that would warrant overtiring the results of the election. Had they done so, their constituents would have understood that Trump's claims were bogus and that the insurrection was therefore an illegal act.  

If they vote to impeach, they will enrage those constituents to whom they had lied; they risk at the very least losing their seats at the next election, and may even be in grave danger from the anger they have fomented. And so, ironically, those who harp on more than most about this being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" find themselves in bind a of their own making where standing up to the mob they have created is the act of bravery that the moment demands. 

Failure to stand up to violent extremists who directly threaten members of our legislatures, state or federal, means we are living in a county where the threat of violence rules the day, where bullies get their way, and democracy is nothing but a sham. 

Off by 6 days

In early October I wrote: "Most likely he [Trump] will claim it's voter fraud and that the election is being stolen from him. My fear is he will call on his army of right wing militias to come to defend what he thinks is his rightful victory. And as we saw in Michigan, there were be those prepared to heed the call; and they will descend, armed and angry on Washington D.C. to defend Trump in the White House."

On October 31st, I wrote:  "The courts will likely end up curtailing the tally prematurely. If that does not deliver the victory Trump wants, expect him to declare massive voter fraud and call (implicitly if not explicitly) for an armed insurrection ('will no one rid me of this turbulent ex-vice president?') to prevent him being evicted from the the White House. Expect more well armed thugs to take to the streets." I was wrong about the courts which is both encouraging and a little surprising. And I didn't expect his ire to be directed at his own sitting VP rather than the office's previous occupant.  I also wrote: "If America makes it through the next two months without politically motivated bloodshed that will be a miracle". I was off by 6 days; and sadly, we did not get that miracle. 

My daughter! O my ducats!

The day after Insurrection Day, I argued that his almost-a-concession speech was the only way he could have avoided a second impeachment. As we are now learning, that was probably something he was persuaded to do by his legal advisors (not that they've done such a great job recently but this was at least pretty sage). Yet his apparent disconnecting from reality is proceeding apace, and he has now reverted to type, asserting that there was nothing wrong with what was effectively his call to arms on Insurrection Day. The result has been a stiffening of resolve on the left to impeach him and even a few high profile converts from the right. 

And, as I envisioned, his business dealings may now be about to unravel. His brand is diminished, some would say worthless, even toxic. Good legal advice, which he will certainly need, is getting harder to come by; his properties are losing customers and his signature golf courses are losing big tournaments. He may find it hard to borrow the money he needs as his debts fall due. And perhaps SDNY will get us the pound of flesh so many are craving.  

Transfixed

Several accounts of Trump's actions during the siege and storming of the Capitol indicate that he spent the afternoon transfixed, glued to the television as events unfolded. To me that suggests several things; first Trump is so completely devoid of a capacity for empathy that even though he knew his VP was in the building as it was being attacked, he was unwilling to taking action (he refused calls from numerous people begging him to call off his mob); because at the same time he was riveted (and apparently enjoying) the spectacle he had so long nurtured and cultivated.  

It was his dream come true; a private army wiling to do his bidding. As someone who evidently gets off on manipulating others, this  was his intoxicating masterpiece. And in that he would seem to be in good company, with the likes of Putin, Orban, Erdoğan, and Duterte, all autocratic leaders for whom he has expressed admiration (and probably envies). The presidency, it seems, was "too much [constraint] and never enough [power]".      

Poof!

That's the sound of my head exploding after having to listen to Fox and Friends this morning. The couch dimwits played a clip of someone on MSNBC noting that Qasem Suleimani was very popular in Iran. What they somehow took away from that was that MSNBC loved Iran more than America. That's simply demented.

A family affiar

Though it is still uncertain whether Trump will, or even will be allowed, to run again in 2024, one should not forget that Trump organized his businesses and his presidency, like the Mafia, as a family affair. Since he only trusts his kith and kin (and more specifically his progeny's families), they were invited to play a central role in his White House.

By all accounts, his oldest son relished the attention and power, and was oblivious to criticism in his role as consigliere from anyone but his dad. That apple did not fall far from the tree; like his pop, Don Jr. appears to be unprincipled, vain, selfish and vengeful. And like Trump Sr. he lives in the shadow of an overbearing father who he needs to continually impress, and who ultimately demands obsequious obedience.  

Should junior run, expect him to set about settling scores, going after anyone who he or hid did think have wronged them; indeed, he'll likely do that whether he makes a run for the office or not.  He hasn't been banned from social media so expect him to become the surrogate voice of Trump the elder, whose followers will easily make the switch to following a son in his father's image. The GOP may thing they are better of ridding themselves of the Trump stain, but it may not be washed away so easily. 

Another bite from the big apple?

Trump has hinted repeatedly that he might make another run for the presidency in 2024. Were he to be impeached, even if he were not dethroned (the Senate is still unlikely to convict), he might still be barred from holding public office. The message that would send to others who might govern in his mold would be an important one.

But there might be a down-side; if he is barred from running again, others may take up the mantle. While Don Jr. is might try, my hunch (assuming he's not in jail) is that he'd not get the nomination; it would likely go to someone like Hawley or Cruz. Both have been keen to ride Trump's train and their shenanigans in the Senate on Insurrection Day were intended to lay the groundwork for a 2024 run. 

What makes that troubling is that they are both clearly far more intelligent than Trump and are therefore much less likely to make the kind of miss-steps he has made. That makes them more effective and hence more dangerous. One can only hope that the revulsion at the events of January 6th will be remembered long enough and their names along with it that they won't be able to keep driving the train in the nihilistic populist direction Trump set.

Insurrection Day: the Prequel

Who's to blame? What you'll hear (and are already hearing) from the far-right is "ANTIFA", "false-flag operation" (which is of course debunk-able nonsense; the ring leaders are apparently well know to the FBI as far-right extremists). 

From the slightly-less-rabid right we'll get the usual "a few bad apples" story, so often used in defending police shootings, the "good people on both sides" approach. What none of them will likely ever say is that the blame lies squarely with the GOP. 

Republicans didn't just turn a blind eye to Trump's egregious behavior for four years; they enabled him, they coddled him, they allowed him to escape any consequences for his repeated bad acts. Susan Collins's post-impeachment "I think he's learned his lesson" is the most obvious example of their complicit subservience.  Worse still, Sens. Hawley and Cruz, aided and abetted by eleven other US senators and more than half the GOP's house members, went along with the ridiculous charade that led Trump's base to think that there was a possibility the election might be overturned even after all the court challenges had failed. 

That, ultimately, is where the blame for yesterday's event lies, perhaps even more so than with Trump himself. Had the GOP not implicitly endorsed his delusions by refusing to tell him clearly and decisively that once the court challenges were over, it was done and by putting up with his transgressions for four years, he would not have been quite so bold (or stupid) yesterday. 

But as so often, the enablers and instigators will escape much of the blow-back while the DOJ prosecutes some "low level offenders". Not that I want to let Trump's rioters off the hook - what they did was terrible, but they had been goaded into it by none other than the president himself. His months long repeated claim that if he lost it could only be because of fraud was all they heard; and they trusted him.  And so it is understandable that at the 11th hour, having been fed a diet of lies by Trump and the right wing media, they would truly believe that Trump had won and that they had to do something to save the country from what they had been convinced was a coup by the left. 

Those who stormed the Capitol yesterday are not blameless, but neither are those who set the stage; those who will be charged had been told only minutes before, by the Commander in Chief no less, that they were acting in good faith. Did he tell them to storm the Capitol? No. Did his words imply they should. Absolutely!  Those who will take the fall are to some degree the victims of another Trump scam, this time with the members of the GOP as accomplices.   

How we got here, how yesterday happened, as shocking as it was, should not be not a surprise. How we fix it however is much more complicated.

Insurrection Day: Aftermath

Now a string of resignations: yesterday its was lower level aids Grisham, Niceta, Mulveney, Matthews and one cabinet appointee, Elaine Chow; today it was Education Secretary DeVos. 

The rush for the exit is to say the least unusual, but predicated one imagines by Trump's inciting a riot at the Capitol yesterday.

Was it a sudden realization, as Marine General John Kelly, ex- Chief of Staff put it today, that Trumps was a deeply flawed individual? Was it that they thought that he'd just gone too far? 

Perhaps not; more likely it was self-preservation of the vestiges of their reputations and the fear that unless they distanced themselves with all due haste they would be forever tied to Trump's appalling legacy. And for the cabinet level resignees, they avoided the possibility of having to discuss his removal under the 25th amendment. At least that way they wouldn't have to pick a side, democracy or Trump's base. 

Insurrection Day: A New Dawn

A few minutes ago Donald J. Trump released a video statement in which he agreed to stop trying to steal the election. Well not exactly; he agreed to a peaceful transfer of power to "a new administration".

While it was hardly surprising that he did not have the good grace to even mention Joe Biden, let alone congratulation him on his win, the fact that he has given up on the fight to stay in office is. 

Whether he feels partly responsible for yesterday's chaos, a situation he himself laboriously created or whether he was pushed we may never know. But the fact that there was serious talk about invoking the 25th Amendment and, were he not to be removed from office or resign, a second impeachment, may well have contributed to his decision, which, while not a concession per-se, was a close to one as anyone could have hoped. 

One interpretation is that were he to be turfed out under the 25th, or failing that, be impeached a second time (which was almost certain - although his removal by the Senate would again be doubtful) not only would his political future be over but his business life could get much more difficult with a completely trashed personal brand. While his removal under the 25th was a long shot, a second impeachment wasn't; and he would go down in history as the only president to have been impeached twice.      

His implicit concession was possibly the only way to defuse the coming onslaught; he'd pushed the envelope just a bit too far this time.  Unlike the Ukraine scandal, the images of the assault on the Capitol were striking and viral. The juxtaposition of video of his rally and the subsequent insurrection were so much more powerful than a "perfect [phone] call" that his ability to mount a defense in the court of public opinion was greatly diminished.   

As a now definitively lame duck president, effectively stripped of power and with his fair weather travelers jumping ship, his political adversaries and ex-allies, whom he had abandoned and often humiliated, could pursue him with far greater impunity; that was a risk he may have calculated was too great.  

By taking the wind out of the sails of the 25th amendment folk and making it politically much harder for the House to impeach him, he has averted an almost certain confrontation; and in so doing he may live to fight another day.  Lets hope he's lost his taste for politics and now understands that governing effectively  involves real work, something to which he appears to be quite allergic.

Segmentation in the news indsutry

When producing television was an expensive business, with high capital startup costs and thus economies of scale, only a small number of entities could survive (particular if one was state-funded via the license fee, as was the case with the BBC in the 1960s). When there was only a handful of channels, each had to appeal to the entire viewing audience with a generic one-size-fits-all product so news was not tailored to particular demographics or market segments. The news you saw on the 9 o'clock News on BBC was little if at all different in terms of content and approach from what you'd see on the 10pm ITN broadcast. 

But as production costs fell, and satellite and cable broadcasting lowered entry barriers by providing channels at lower costs, competition in the TV industry increased; news rooms were asked to become profit centers rather than cost centers. While state funded entities could resist segmentation pressure, new entrants found they could be profitable (and attract more advertising) by appealing to narrower demographics.  Market entry is always easier when you target a niche. 

The 1980s in Britain saw the rise of the tabloid newspapers; the "stuffy" broadsheets (which were hard to read in a crowded tube because of their size) were augmented and supplanted by the smaller "tabloids" whose pages were half the size. Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell, the two innovators, in this segment understood that their product, still quaintly referred to as "papers" if only because of the material on which they were printed, did not have to be truthful to sell well. And thus began the tailoring and manufacturing of content to appeal to particular demographics. 

Rupert Murdoch took that insight into his TV empire, Fox in the US and and Sky in Britain. He now understood that by tailoring content to lucrative segments, dispensing with expensive fact checking and introducing opinion shows (which, like reality TV, were cheaper to produce), he could turn the news into a very profitable business. 

The result of lower entry barriers has been a proliferation of channels targeted at different segments like MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox, OANN and Newsmax.  And with that segmentation, audiences self-selected into the audience groups they preferred. Over time the segments diverged not only in terms of their perspectives on events but on the very events they chose to cover. So now, in contrast to the 1960s when everyone say the same stories covered in much the same way, people now see completely different stories covered with vastly different interpretive frames.  

And so here was are with a country (the USA) divided broadly into two market segments - which also means two information universes. That is why we can no longer have a civil discussion on policy; we are living side by side in different informational worlds. We speak the same language but what we know and how we interpret things, shaped by these divergent media outlets, are so radically different as to make constructive dialog "problematic".  

Insurrection Day: Fallout

January 6th 2020, Insurrection Day, has led to the resignation of several top White House aids. Stephanie Grisham, Melania's chief of staff, Anna Cristina Niceta, the White House social secretary, Mick Mulveney, once press secretary and now special envy to Ireland, and deputy White House press secretary Sarah Matthews had all resigned. Several others including national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien, deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger and deputy chief of staff Chris Liddell were also thinking of leaving. Elaine Chow, Transport Secretary (and Mitch McConnell's wife) has also resigned. 

Was it an act of courageous defiance, risking the ire of their now former boss? Hardly! With two weeks to go, there is little downside - they'd be out of a job then. But there is a huge upside; they can tout this as acting on principle, showing, too, how they have distanced themselves from the mad king. They can pretend this shows they disagreed with him. But we must not forget that for four years, they have gone along for the ride; jumping ship when the ride has already ground to a halt is not something to be admired.

January 6th "Insurrection Day"

Just as July 4th is Independence Day, January 6th will be forever known "Insurrection Day", a day on which Trump's final coup de grace, a coup d'etat, was to incite a mob he had called on to come to Washington D.C. and then told them to go to the Capitol and "show strength", "be strong". 

Unsurprisingly, they took this, as he intended but will never admit, to mean using force to get him what he (and they) wanted which was to disrupt the certification of Biden's victory.  

It is tempting to dismiss this as just another Trumpian episode, particularity since Congress did finally complete its certification in the early hours of Thursday morning. But that would be a mistake.  

First of all, one person was shot trying to break into the House chamber. Second, it is the tip of the iceberg and speaks to a much more enduring social problem that will outlast Trump but not his ilk. 

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase's CEO used the banal and hackneyed aphorism “This is not who we are as a people or a country. We are better than this". But all the evidence suggests his statement is at best aspirational, if not delusional. It is precisely who seventy one million Americans have said quite clearly that they indeed are; after 5 years of Trump's lies, broken promises, bullying, and general misbehavior, not to mention absurd incompetence, they voted to reelect him. And, according to polling, a large majority of them truly believe the election was rigged and voter fraud was widespread. That puts the "Great American Experiment" at considerable risk. 

Too little, too late

Leader McConnell made two really important speeches today. In his first, at the opening of the debate to certify the results of the election results, he made an impassioned plea to his colleagues to acknowledge the realty that the election was properly tabulated that the result was not in doubt.  The second was as the Senate reconvened, after its work was disrupted by Trump's thugs. He pleaded again for the Senate to conduct its business without further procedural nonsense of objecting to properly certified election results. 

As heartwarming as it is to hear McConnell clearly supporting the peaceful transition of power, as Stacy Abrams noted with respect to the actions of Republican Secretary of State for the state of Georgia, we should not forget the years of obstruction, the refusal to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland; and let us also note that he is finally saying what he should have said weeks ago.  

For too long, Republicans have either turned a blind eye to Trump's lies and his undermining of democracy and its institutions, and in some cases encouraged him. 

After the events of today, confirming the election results is no longer about making a symbolic protest as to the fairness of changes some states made to their electoral processed in light of the pandemic. It is now about quelling the unhinged extremists Trump has riled up.  To not do so now, will be to continue to lend credence to the insane lies Trump has been promulgating for months. 

It is also worth pointing out that, as Speaker Pelosi noted, this day of Epiphany, members of Congress appear to have had their own collective epiphany; that both sides of the aisle should work collaboratively together. What is also striking is that it was only when they found themselves personally imperiled that they come to the realization that the promoting of wild conspiracy theories and the relentless undermining of faith in the institutions of our democracy has very real consequences. 

Notably, Admiral Mike Mullen, ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has served in that capacity  under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, suggested this evening on PBS invoking the 25th amendment to remove Trump from office in light of his clearly undemocratic behavior and the violence his demented rhetoric has stoked. That's something I never expect to hear: the day continues to surprise.

Not a great day for America

Craig Ferguson used to begin his late night talk shows with "It's a great day for America"; but today was decidedly not. Trump supporters, egged on by Trump, stormed the Capitol while a joint session of Congress was in the process of certifying the November election. One person was shot and died.

As so often before this was incredibly shocking but completely unsurprising. We saw images that were reminiscent of those from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia when the will of electors was was ignored by an undemocratic incumbent. Representative Mike Gallagher (R-Wisconsin), interview on PBS, told Judy Woodruff that he was barricaded in his office in Congress; rioters broke police lines, and smashed windows to break into the Capitol where they roamed around for hours before eventually being evicted by the initially woefully overwhelmed police. 

The image of the Senate chamber being defended from rioters by plain clothed Capitol police with drawn weapons was perhaps the most jarring image I can remember, ranking along side the collapse of the Twin Towers. 

As shocking as today's ugly episode was, and we should be immensely thankful that it was just an episode, it was completely predictable. Indeed, I wrote this post at the end of October suggesting exactly this outcome.  I did get two things wrong; first, I did not expect Trump to insight insurrection so blatantly and explicitly. And I didn't expect the initial police response to be so weak allowing the rioters to enter the Capitol. 

While those involved were relatively few in number, there is a frighteningly large number who likely support their actions. Let's not forget that seventy million people voted for Trump, despite knowing what we now know about his improper, potentially illegal, and routinely dishonest, not to mention incompetent, conduct; that's a problem. 

Making it worse are the cynical actions of members of Congress, Hawley and Cruz for example, who for cynical political  gain, had bolstered Trump's delusional claims. Lending seeming legitimacy to Trump's nonsensical claims about the election creates a problem where none existed. Based on their education they are not stupid, so they must understand that their assertions that the election needs to be overturned because so many people do not believe the outcome is preposterous; the only reason so many do not believe in the legitimacy of the election is that Trump, Cruz, Hawley and so many other members of the GOP had been telling them exactly this for months.         

"The Capitol has now been secured" Woodruff announced on PBS. Who could ever have imagined that in a Western democracy anyone would have to make that statement?  In my lifetime, at least that I can remember, no seat of Western government has been physically assaulted by political extremists. 

The hollowed ground of our democratic government has been violated. Our democratic system has been ill for some time; the cancer that has plagued it for years has metastasized into a stage four life-threatening condition in the era of Trump. The events of today should give us all pause that our democracy is on life support. 

Here are some of the shocking images, courtesy of the Washington Post.