Keeping your powder dry

In The Prince, Machiavelli cautions: "men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge".

The "establishment" comprises largely Democrats and a few courageous Republicans, those who believe in preserving the rules based order, both abroad and at home. Increasingly, and opportunistically catalyzed by Donald Trump, there is a group who want to tear it all down, who feel "the system" is not working for them (and they may be right about "the system"). 

The January 6th committee, the most visible manifestation of "the establishment", has issued a subpoena requiring Donald Trump to provide documents and testify under oath before the committee, a step unprecedented in recent US history. 

But as with two failed impeachments, to paraphrase Nietzsche what doesn't kill him makes him stronger. A wounded animal is more dangerous than one that is unharmed (or dead).  Taking legal potshots at Donald Trump will do nothing to reduce his political influence and will animate his supporters, increasing his immunity from political attacks and making any future legal action against him more divisive.   

The "establishment" would do well to heed Machiavelli's advice and keep it's (mixed-)metaphorical  powder dry until is has a slam-dunk.

Not a chance

There is a snowballs chance in hell that Donald Trump will appear before the House committee investigating the January 6th insurrection; to imagine otherwise is to entirely misunderstand Trump. Yes, he has said he wants to appear to make is case but that's his usual gas-lighting bluster. Such proclamations come without risk to him just as do his trademark lies made in the media. But what had become clear is that when he faces real legal jeopardy, he pleads the 5th. 

Testifying under oath before the January 6th committee would mean facing questions about his role in the insurrection. Given the evidence the committee has unearthed so far, answering truthfully about his involvement and his actions would amount to a confession as to his role in the plot to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Answering untruthfully would likely be less damaging but would none the less represent a legal problem for him.  

His most likely play is to first ignore the subpoena and then to challenge it in court to create delay sufficient to run out the clock past the mid-terms. If that fails he will dare the January 6th committee to try to enforce it, something they may hesitate to do given his ardent supporters passion and their potential for violence.    

The only circumstance in which he would testify would be if he were to adopt the position that the January 6th committee, and by extension the legislative branch of the government, had no legal authority to question him as an ex-president. While that is clearly bonkers, it is the argument routinely used by autocrats when they face judicial proceedings; they consider themselves above the law. While it is possible that Trump is that delusional, his past practice suggests that he hasn't taken leave of his sense to quite that degree. 

Of course, I could be wrong; either way it will be another Trumpian spectacle that will challenge the robustness of our institutions.  

Insurrection Day : Subpoena

January 6th 2020, when a mob, whipped into a frenzy by Donald Trump, marched on the Capitol, broke in and violently disrupted the certification of the 2019 presidential election, was one of the most shocking events in my lifetime.  

Today was almost as shocking. The January 6th Committee publicly issued a subpoena calling on Donald Trump to provide documents requested by, and to testify under oath before, the committee. The resolution calling for the subpoena was recorded in a unanimous roll-call vote. Not a single member dissented or abstained.

Where things go from here is very unclear. Given his penchant for diversion, distraction and delaying tactics, it seems unlikely that Trump will ever comply. One thing is certain, however; the stakes have been raised. 

Social categorization

In the UK, arguably the most salient social categories are accents. There are broadly three: no particular accent suggests middle class. Strong regional accent suggests working class. And "posh" public school accent says upper class.  

The US doesn't rely on accents as much as color and language. The three broad categories in the US seem to be white, black and immigrant. Black and immigrant are easily identified by their color and the two are separated by language. 

Language, while not immutable, sometimes leaves speakers with a national accent that suggests the speaker is a "foreigner". But distinguishing accents, which can be eradicated or acquired, color cannot.  Social categorizations in the US, based as they are to such a degree on race, are thus more immutable than in the UK.

Changing culture, one story at a time

No one news story, tweet, or Facebook post will change peoples' minds. For those on the right, each story of a unlawful police killing or unhinged shooter will be just an outlier that doesn't represented a contradiction to their underlying world view that the police a good and guns aren't the problem. For those on the left each story of Democrats involved in shady business enterprises is simply dismissed as right wing political propaganda.  

But sufficient exposure to one kind of narrative or another may begin to lend credibility to its underlying interpretive frame and undermine a previously held contradictory frame. Thus someone who predominantly watches Fox will likely absorb the set of fundamental premises and value ordering that support the interpretive frame of the extreme right while listeners to NPR or MSNBC will be more likely to use the empathetic lens of the far left in interpreting events.  

For this to happen does not require that the farmings are made explicit (though Fox' opinion show do) but simply that the stories chosen tend to support the central political narrative of that source. So Fox will under-report stories of gun violence while over-emphasizing those about crimes committed by immigrants while the NPR or MSNBC will stream stories of the misfortune or abuse of underrepresented minorities or the ease with which guns can be purchased in some states.   

As the two media camps try to differentiated themselves to appeal to their target demographic they also change that demographic. As each loses viewers and subscribers in the middle, their center of gravity shits away from the center and the two narrative drift apart to to the point where the value system that underlies the choice of story (and interpretation if given) of each is almost unrecognizable to the other.  That's the way America has arrived at "one system two countries".