Domestic Terrorists? Not really

The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been in the news quite a bit lately, with the January 6th Hearings and all.  They have been branded "domestic terrorists" by the Department of Homeland Security. But are they really terrorists? 

They put on a good show, brandishing long guns and parading around in body armor and camo. But have they really committed any acts of terrorism?  Yes, there is lots of chatter and they were deeply involved in the Insurrection, but apart from that, what have they done? Yes there was the Oklahoma City bombing, and there have been hate crimes committed by right wing nutters, but these appear to be uncoordinated "lone-wolf" operations, in the national security parlance.  For the most part, these quasi-militias appear for photo-ops, protest marches and feel-good rallies, but they are probably more of a social club of terrorist wannabes.

I grew up in Britain in the 60s and 70s during The Troubles.  There were at least four real paramilitary organizations who could reasonably be called terrorists: the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Provisional IRA (the "Provos") on the Catholic side; and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA)/Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) on the Protestant side.  

All were not only well organized, they also acted; they planted bombs, they shot and killed people, either on the other side or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army which had been sent in to quell the violence, even a member of the Royal Family, Lord Mountbatten. 

These were real terrorists; they didn't parade around in camo or brandish guns; they blended in, planned carefully and committed acts of true terrorism. (Pro tip: you can't commit an act of terrorism and get away with it by drawing attention to yourself). In comparison, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, at least so far, are just performative cos-play social clubs. And long may that distinction continue. 

Insurrection Day : Hearing #6

Today a very brave young woman, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified before the January 6th Committee.  A number of things about the hearing were noteworthy. First was that it happened at all; this was almost certainly because Hutchinson had been threatened by Trump and his MAGA cronies and the Committee was fearful that she might either refuse to testify if the intimidation succeeded; or possibly worse. 

Next were some important revelations. Three stood out for me:

• Trump wanted to let heavily armed individuals (probably members of the Oath Keeps, the Proud Boys or other similar pseudo-paramilitary clubs) into his speech at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6th. Despite being told they were heavily armed he reasoned (rightly) that they were not there to harm him, and he wanted a really really big crowd for the TV - just like at his inauguration.
• Trump and his advisors all new that there was a real possibility for the crowd to turn into an ugly violent mob, yet they were either dismissive (Meadows) or in some cases (Trump) hoping for exactly that.
• Not only is Trump ruthless and utterly unprincipled (something many of us predicted six years ago and for which he has provided ample evidence since), but he is also a sociopath with a tendency for real violence and almost no self-control. His plate throwing was just a taster; his physical assault on his driver and the head of his security detail when they refused to take him to the Capitol after his speech at the Ellipse was simply jaw-dropping.          

Yet despite all of the evidence assembled and presented at these hearings, the MAGA crowd will be unmoved, either because the weren't listening or if they were, will say (and may even believe) that is is all part of a sinister plot by the Communists, ANTIFA and the Jews to destroy the white Christian society that they think of as "America". 

America: One system, two countries

In foreign policy, it has long been de rigueur to refer to the Taiwan/China question as "One country, two systems" as a way of placating both sides. The two recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court have created the exact opposite: one system, two countries. 

While Americans vote in a single nationwide election for a single nationwide federal government, it is becoming increasingly clear that America is no longer one country; and last week's SCOTUS decision will only deepen the divide. By allowing red states to enact more extreme conservative policies, many will leave them for bluer pastures. And those in blue states who are less liberal will emigrate red-wards, something that is already happening to California. 

The result will be less compromise, more rancor and a worsening of the national political climate. The result will be still more legislative deadlock at the federal level and as a consequences, declines in the country's economic performance and its clout in international affairs. That will leave the way clear for China to become the dominant superpower of this century. 

Unless Americans can find a single cause around which to rally, something that covid clearly demonstrated is unlikely to happen, the US looks increasingly like a country in steep decline. 

Courting disaster

Leaving aside the particular question on which the US Supreme Court issues its ruling last week, the decision has dire consequences for the United States. 

In overturning Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the Court reversed a 50 year old precedent that had been previously upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions. Given their assurance at their confirmation headings that they would respected stare decisis, that makes the three most recent appointees look less than honest. While we now have come to expect our political leaders to lie routinely, something the 45 demonstrated par excellence, to now find that the most powerful and highest ranking members of the judicial branch do too is not simply disappointing; it erodes trust in another critical institution of democracy. Their example will filter down the food chain with the result that anyone seeking to serve in the judiciary will be presumed to be disingenuous until proven otherwise.

Second, given the relentless campaign by the right to appoint politically conservative justices, whatever the research on SCOTUS decision-making suggests, there can now be no question, at least in the public mind, that the Court is simply politics by other means. That opens that door for further politicization, this time from the left to tip the political balance on the Court back to the center (and back to where, at least in the case of abortion, the majority of the public is). A highly political Court, as this one clearly is, undermines trust in the judiciary.

The implications for democracy in the US are profound. When citizens lose trust in the administration, Congress and the judicial branch, there is, in the end, nothing left but protest, violence and the achieving of ends by force. This country is heading down a dark and dangerous road.

Political Asymmetry

It is clear from the evidence presented by the Congressional January 6th commission that Donald Trump was instrumental and central to the effort to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election. It is also clear that he was enabled in this by those around him; some like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell were completely unscrupulous actors for whom the end justified the means and truth was immaterial. Others were simply too weak or too afraid to cross Trump who, like every gangster, used fear as a means of control; and as spiteful and vindictive as he is, would exact revenge against any who dared exhibit an iota of disloyalty. 

But to most rational outside observers, the puzzle is why those in his circle apparently took so long to understand what Trump was doing and took no steps beforehand to prevent him from ripping up the constitution in his pursuit of power.  It's astounding because Trump told everyone on prime time TV on multiple occasions what he would do should he lose; and still Republicans and in particular those in his inner circle chose to pretend that he wouldn't carry out his thread to undermine the election. To the rest of us, his lies about the election was shocking but unsurprising. (Indeed, I still don't understand why, when some fact Trump doesn't like, the media insist on reporting that "Trump denies the allegation". Anyone who has been paying attention these last six years knows that Trump lies incessantly; to report his denial is therefore of no legitimate news value - but I digress).    

After the second day of public hearings today, the PBS News Hour invited Ben Ginsberg, a long-time Republican elections attorney, onto the program to comment on the days proceedings. He cautioned that Republicans should be concerned that by not soundly condemning Trump's disregard for the constitutional transfer of power, they set a precedent that Democrats would exploit should a Republican win fair and square in a future election.  Unfortunately he's quite wrong and Republicans need not worry. When push comes to shove, Democrats lack the raw craving for power that Republicans have increasingly exhibited the last quarter century; Democrats are still, to some small degree, restrained by principle and allegiance to the rule of law (rather ironic,  since that used to be the Republican's key selling point). 

Kayser Söze ("The Usual Suspects") was feared because he was prepared to kill members of his family to demonstrate just how ruthless he was. Trump has proven to be the Kayser Söze of the American political system. And in the six years since he entered the political arena, we have not found a way to combat his unprincipled self-interested pursuit of power. The result is a laying waste of values and trust in democracy from which it will take decades for the country to recover - if it ever does.