THE UTOPIAN
TRUMP AND THE 2020 ELECTIONS
Utopian Tendency Discussion
WHAT WAS THE CHARACTER OF THE JANUARY 6, 2020 EVENTS?
In the context of the hearings being held by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, members and supporters of the Utopian Tendency returned to a discussion of the nature of the January 6 events and, more broadly, the efforts by former President Trump to reverse the 2022 election results. The discussion focused on whether the actions by Trump constituted a coup/insurrection, and the broader political ramifications of the issue.
The discussion is presented below.
July 1, 2022
Rod, Rod, and Mike:
Have you changed your views of the Jan. 6 events (and the situation around them) since then? Personally, I feel more strongly than ever that there was an attempted coup, although I still do not think it had a chance to succeed.
Wayne
July 1
Good question.
My initial view was based on my rejection of the notion that the rioters themselves were staging a coup. This continues to seem far-fetched—had the crowd been able to more thoroughly overpower the forces of ‘law and order,’ what then? Would they have held the Capitol captive until their leader was proclaimed President (based on the insurrectionists’ occupation of the Capital)? My view was that to see people who believed the election had been stolen (the President of the United States and the overwhelming majority of one of the country’s two institutionalized parties told them that this was so), and who had been asked/told by a President they supported and believed in, to go to the Capitol and ‘raise hell.’ They did this. Within this framework there were elements (apparently, though one must be careful here, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers) who were prepared to use the situation as an opportunity to heighten violence and advance the coming Armageddon. (Why does Antifa pop in my mind as I write this?) As a result, I was reluctant in the extreme to give credence to the notion that THESE PEOPLE were treasonous insurrectionists and should be charged as such. When/if the Republicans take over, do you not think it highly likely that Antifa types will face just such charges? Will you defend them against such charges? Will this be because you agree with them ‘more’ (i.e., does it all come down to who has the ‘sufficiently correct’ views)?
*****
The above notwithstanding, it appears that Trump and certain very, very, very stupid people (which is to say, people who were loyal to and willing to follow a complete idiot) planned to go to the ‘nth’ to carry out what might be called a legal coup—that is to say, to bend every possible rule to the utmost to find a path to have the election called in Trump’s favor. They did not seem to have plans to carry out what might be called a classic coup, that is, to seize power through the forceful overthrow of political and military institutions of the state (I saw no such actions and the hearings have revealed no evidence of the latter). I have no objection to Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, McCarthy, Flynn, et. al., being charged and convicted of something like treason or seditious conspiracy. (They won’t be.) This is because I don’t take sides in how the ruling class settles its scores.
*****
I recognize (and commented briefly on a day or so ago) that the liberal/progressive media frames all the above as a defense of ‘our democracy.’ It is this notion that I oppose above all else. Whose democracy? What democracy? But I DO defend democratic rights, such as they are. And, to come full circle, I am loathe to support the ruling class when it prosecutes (persecutes) political dissidents, regardless of my level of agreement with said dissidents.
I hope this begins to address your question and that others will join the discussion.
Rod
July 1
Difficult for me to think of the rioters as “dissidents” though that may be strictly speaking accurate, and I most definitely do draw a distinction between dissidents protesting the taking away of my rights and dissidents who want to take those rights away. It’s personal AND political.
But yes, government policing etc. of political dissension is… slippery, and I can see the desire to and logic in seeing that policing as an absolute, and something to absolutely oppose.
Political violence… well, I do oppose that, from whatever side, whether by the government or by “dissenters.”
Robin
July 1
Robin and All,
Many disagreements here, but I will focus on one: how exactly do you determine/judge who is taking away your rights? If the Republican Party arrested and tried Liz Cheney on some bogus charge, would you feel any sympathy for her? Check out her politics. The Democratic Party has often curtailed rights, yet it is my impression that you generally give them your vote. Don’t ask, don’t tell. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden denied the right to live free, that is, jailed for unconscionably long terms, to millions of people, specifically young Black men. I suspect you gave your political support (vote and urging others to do the same) to both.
Be careful of slippery slopes.
Rod
July 1
I should have said “who are in favor of taking away my rights”
and yes I am in disagreement with pretty much every Liz Cheney policy position but no not in favor of locking her up on some bogus charge.
and yes I vote and it’s almost always been a lesser-evil vote and I’ve always been bitterly disappointed in Democratic governance.
just as you may hope for and when called upon work towards a popular uprising that brings a sane society, so I have vainly hoped that Democratic governance would rise above just a little bit less awful. but I would also join in such an uprising if one were to germinate.
you’re right of course that very very few Democrats are anything but right-of-center status quo… etc. etc.
Robin
July 3
Rod,
Thank you for your current thinking.
“I don’t take sides in how the ruling class settles its scores.” Agreed, but I do take sides in fights between bourgeois-democracy (with workers’ rights) and fascism or quasi-fascism (which includes efforts to take away the last of workers’—and women’s—rights).
Wayne
July 3
Robin, Wayne, Rod, and everybody else,
If I felt that American bourgeois democracy were really at risk, say, from a serious fascist or authoritarian threat, I would defend bourgeois democracy, as the Bolsheviks defended the bourgeois Provisional Government (and the Soviets, factory committees, trade unions, workers’ militias, Red Guards, cooperatives, and other mass organizations) against the coup attempt by Lavr Kornilov in late August 1917. However, I do not believe, by a long shot, that such was the case during the January 6, 2021, events.
Ron
July 3
I think it may be the case in the next few years.
Robin
July 3
Wayne,
Since you like to ask questions (for clarification, of course), what do you think it would be appropriate to charge Trump with (and presumably convicted of), and what would you consider to be an appropriate sentence?
Ron
July 3
All,
I share Ron’s view that bourgeois democracy was not under threat during the ’Trump episode.’ (Robin: What might be the case ‘in the next few years’ is both irrelevant to what Was the case in this case; it is also unknowable). Where was a section of the military prepared to overthrow the government. Where were credible (redshirted?) para-military force? (Surely not a couple of hundred Proud Boys and Oath Keepers?) Where was anything remotely resembling the overthrow of the deep state, it’s security forces and its institutions???
As I have pointed out repeatedly in this discussion, Trump went to great lengths to find a path to overturn the election results. He brought umpteen court cases (all rejected). He attempted to strong-arm various state officials. He took a last, desperate, and incredibly foolish shot at somehow disrupting and altering the outcome of the House certification of the election. All these efforts failed. There was no Plan B. There were no forces to carry out a coup. When all the ‘legal’ channels (no matter how manipulated, and regardless of the crimes that may have been committed to do so) were exhausted, it was game over. No coup. No insurrection. No overthrow of the US bourgeois-democratic state. Bourgeois democracy was not at risk—not hardly.
Al Gore won a sizable majority of the popular vote and lost the electoral vote and the presidency on questionable grounds. Does anyone on this list believe that the GW Bush presidency constituted the overthrow of bourgeois democracy? Would 200 Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have changed your mind?
Wayne: I believe you far too easily substitute defending bourgeois democracy for defending those democratic rights that exist.
I am for defending people’s democratic rights, regardless of whether I agree with them politically. In this, I think I am far more consistent than some on this list.
Rod
July 3
not irrelevant at least in terms of the efforts to give state legislatures the power to overturn election results.
Robin
July 3
Robin,
So, did Trump—this Trump at this time—attempt to overthrow bourgeois democracy? The overthrow of bourgeois democracy implies that its fundamental institutions are overthrown—in the case of the USA this involves the historical and institutional role of executive branch (its powers and the limits of those powers), the role of Congress as an independent legislative body, one of three branches of government in a ‘checks and balances system (its powers and the limits of those powers), the judiciary as an independent, third branch of government (its powers and the limitations of these powers), a military that is subordinate to the civilian government, and a host of other institutions, all bound together by the US Constitution, which delineates these powers and defines relationships among these institutions. Do you actually imagine that Trump’s narcissistic and colossally stupid escapade was going to overthrow 250 years of highly successful (to the capitalist class, certainly, and to others to varying degrees) bourgeois democracy in the United States?
Rod
July 3
Reply to Wayne on Donald Trump’s “Attempted Coup”
Ron Tabor
A joke and an adage sum up my views of Trump’s whatever-you-call-it:
Joke: How do we know Trump organized the insurrection?
Because it failed.
Adage (paraphrasing V.I. Lenin): Never play at insurrection!
Donald Trump has no idea of what a serious coup d’état would look like and even less of how to organize one. He is probably the most ignorant man to have ever been president of the United States. Beyond recognizing the names “Adolf Hitler” and “Nazis,” and the words “death camps” and
“Holocaust” (and I’m not convinced he even knows this), I doubt Trump knows or understands a thing about fascism, let alone how to install a fascist regime in this country.
During his term in office, Trump had plenty of far better opportunities than January 6, 2021 to attempt to carry out a coup had he intended to do so. Even as left-wing “theorists” were referring to Trump’s “head-fakes” and seriously discussing which “stage” of fascism the country was in, and while Antifa idiots thought they were fighting real-life storm-troopers, Trump made absolutely no effort to lay the basis for a coup. Aside from a few imbeciles like James Flynn, he made no moves to cultivate support among the top echelons of the military (colonels and generals), without whose support a coup cannot succeed. Instead, he insulted them, dismissed their skills and knowledge and demeaned their mission (defending the American empire) as a fool’s errand. Likewise with the federal bureaucracy, which he stupidly denounced as the “deep state.” Most obviously, he did not even encourage (let alone helped fund) his far-right supporters to organize themselves into seriously armed and trained para-military forces, such as Hitler’s Black Shirts, Brown Shirts, and Stahlhelm forces, or Mussolini’s Squadristi. Aside from throwing a few words their way (such as describing the Charlotte, VA, racist and anti-Semitic marchers as “good people”), he was content to let them posture and pose but remain disorganized and untrained (and mostly likely, highly police-infiltrated) bumblers.
Throughout his presidency, Trump had a variety of opportunities to invoke emergency powers and at least attempt to impose martial law. The first was during the mass reaction to his Muslim travel ban, when thousands (tens of thousands?) of demonstrators marched on and wreaked havoc at the country’s major airports. An even more promising moment was during the demonstrations following George Floyd’s death during the summer of 2020, when (contrary to the claims of the liberal media) Black Lives Matter demonstrators and Black street gangs trashed hundreds (thousands?) of small businesses as well as, in Kenosha, WI, and perhaps elsewhere, many homes in the Black community. There were also the ongoing violent demonstrations in Seattle, WA, and Portland, OR. And yet, during these fraught times, Trump never made the slightest move to declare martial law and seize complete power.
It’s also worth considering what a coup attempt might have looked like on January 6 had Trump been serious about carrying one out. (I leave out of consideration the fact that this was not an opportune time to do so, since it occurred well after Election Day, 2020, when it had become clear to a considerable majority of the people in the country that Trump had, in fact, lost the election to Joe Biden.) Had Trump been in earnest about carrying out a coup at that time, he should have spent the weeks prior to the event touring the country, speaking in as many cities and towns and at as many venues as he could manage, urging his supporters to travel to Washington on Inauguration Day, and organizing and paying for as many trains and buses as possible to take his supporters there. Had this been done far more Trump supporters would have made it to Washington than actually did so. During this time, Trump also ought to have been meeting with as many of his armed far-right minions as possible, to organize their travel to Washington, and, equally important, to work out thoughtful and detailed tactical plans about how they might divert the police forces expected to be guarding the Capitol on January 6, and enable them to breach the Capitol grounds, enter the building in an organized fashion, and carry out precise orders once in the building: which rooms or rooms to proceed to, what to do when they got there, whom to detain, which papers (ballots, etc.) to seize or destroy, etc., etc.
Yet, none of this was done nor even considered. Instead of possibly hundreds of thousands of supporters and tens of thousands of organized and trained para-military forces at his disposal, Trump had on hand a crowd of perhaps 50,000-60,000 along with a miniscule, sparsely armed and highly disorganized, mob of far-right buffoons, who had no serious plans for how to get into the Capitol and what to do when they got there. If it had not been for the unbelievable incompetence of the intelligence agencies and the local police forces, Trump’s “Keystone Kops” would-be storm-troopers would have been stopped at the outer perimeter of the Capitol grounds, and nobody today would be talking about an “insurrection” or “an attempted coup,” let alone “sedition” or “treason” or trying to “overthrow American Democracy.”
Meanwhile, an ignorant, stupid, and desperate Donald Trump, seeing a (rather small) part of his crowd, heeding what was mostly like a purely spontaneous suggestion on his part, march off to the Capitol and actually manage to break into the building, thoughtlessly decides that he wants to join them, deluding himself into believing that they might actually succeed in overturning the election. He throws a plate, grabs a steering wheel, refuses advisors’ advice that he try to call back the crowd (or at least dissociate himself from it), and suggests that perhaps the demonstrators are right, that Mike Pence ought to be hanged.
So, if we wish to parse words, one could say that, yes, at that moment in time, Trump (stupidly and almost inadvertently) attempted to thwart the counting of the Electoral Votes and thus to prevent the orderly transfer of power from one president to another. As a result, one might also say that, technically speaking, Donald Trump is guilty of attempting to carry out, or at least of supporting, an “insurrection” against the US Constitution and the government of the United States of America. But does any competent political observer believe that this really was an insurrection or an attempted coup, as opposed to a riot that had, because of police incompetence, gotten out of control? Does any competent political observer really believe that such an “insurrection” or “attempted coup” had a serious chance of succeeding? Most importantly, does any competent observer seriously believe that Donald Trump, a former president of United States, ought to be brought up on charges of sedition, insurrection, and treason, and tried, convicted, and executed for “heinous crimes”? Because if one does believe that Donald Trump seriously attempted to carry out an insurrectionary coup d’état but does not believe he should be brought up on charges of sedition and treason, tried, convicted, and executed (or, if one is against the death penalty at least sentenced to life in prison), then one is a complete hypocrite. (After all, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed merely for “conspiring” to commit espionage.
How can a political person, particularly someone who considers him/her/their self to be a revolutionary, let alone an anarchist, take any of this seriously? At no point during Donald Trump’s term in office, its aftermath, or even today has American democracy been in serious danger (most importantly, because no significant sector of the ruling elite has the slightest desire to tear up the Constitution and establish an authoritarian dictatorship in this country). And yet, the Democrats, desperate to gin up their supporters to turn out for the mid-term elections, and anti-Trump Republicans, concerned to keep the ever-diminishing Donald Trump from being the Republicans’ presidential candidate in 2024, are going to town with this claptrap. It’s laughable from top to bottom, a bad joke. But it is, in its own way, amusing, and highly entertaining.
Ron
July 4
All,
In answer to the initial question on this thread, my view of the 6th has not changed. I agree with a range of points Ron and Rod have made. The most important was Ron’s focusing on whether bourgeois democracy itself was at stake amid Trump’s shit show. If Trump and company had blundered into a measure of success, stalling the transition or even emerging with the presidency again it would have been through a reversal of the electoral count in a handful or less of the states. It would have still been portrayed as the triumph of constitutional republican democracy. A post theft Trumpist/populist government would have to had attempted to rest itself on existing constitutional institutions, wrap its actions as having preserved “democracy” etc. Given its nationalist economic populist game it would have had to attempt to co-opt the unions and like and not move to crush/extirpate them. The outlines of such a course can be seen in the likes of Tucker Carlson’s the Amazon workers, his and others rightist current’s recent and near past championing the ranks vs. the Dem/liberal t.u. bureaucracies. All this is not to say a continuation of a Trump regime would not have brought DOJ attacks on Antifa, specific unions, civil rights figures and organization’s bureaucracies from different angles. An already democratically deficient US ” democracy” (perfect and “sacred ” to The Democrats and never Trump former Republican elites) would further authoritarianize, if that’s a word.
I’ll put this what if fiction aside. As others have pointed out/asked. Where was Trump’s alliance with any significant portion of the military, police and security bodies? Where was a competently organized storm troops or street, neighborhood and workplace political force as opposed to a disparate mix of rightist and conspiracist yahoos pulling in their tow on the 6th a larger number of clueless unfortunates believing in ” the steal ” amidst political, pandemic confusion and tens of millions of often unsolicited absentee ballots mailed out. This was not a good fit with a population losing faith in the political system but perfect for conspiracy pushers and a con artist media manipulator like Trump.
The hearings in my view revealed nothing new except the commission and its political and media allies’ own heightened ” armed attack ” agitation. I do not deny or dispute that a large array of all types of weapons were present on many persons on the 6th. I do believe the commission and allies manipulated this fact to give the strong impression of both a more widespread presence of firearms and planning to direct and use them on the Dems, Pence and others than in fact was the actuality. Ignored was the fact that the vast majority of the many weapons confiscated at the metal detectors etc. were of a non-firearm and could be seen as defensive. No mention of the fact that at two previous pro Trump national rallies in DC in Nov. and Dec. there occurred serious and somewhat sustained clashes between Trump people and Antifa bands in the wake of both rallies and into the evening hours in the hotel and restaurant districts. A replay of these events was anticipated on the 6th contributing to the arming phenomena. Yes, I have long known about firearm/Oathkeeper hotel caches across the Potomac and whatever but that’s beyond the scope of this post. It should be noted that one major factor in the lack of sufficient Capitol security were the police forces, Capitol and Metro DC, planning and manpower assignments skewed towards afternoon/evening in anticipation of a replay of Nov and Dec. I posted this info immediately on the heels of the 6th.
Having overblown estimates and fears of the ” fascist” capabilities of the MAGA crowd in combination with holding degrees of indifference to or support of governmental ” anti-fascist” /anti-insurrectionist measures directed at them holds its own dangers in charting an independent course from the two dominant political forces ill serving, miseducating folks and inflicting damages on the body politic so to speak in different ways.
Mike
July 4
First, as a general response, let me express agreement with Ron’s key point, that a successful coup was extremely (totally) unlikely on Jan. 6. This was due partly to Trump (and the people he had surrounded himself with) being a very stupid and narcissistic man who had not really prepared for one. Further, and more importantly, no significant part of the ruling class currently wants a coup, and neither did any leading part of the military nor the national police. (This is the real significance of the Secret Service—two men highly committed to Trump—physically refusing to let him go the Capitol demo, to lead the riot). Why would they want a coup? They had already carried out an effective right-wing “coup” in the Supreme Court just by manipulating the established system! The Republicans have an excellent chance of taking over Congress and the Presidency in the next election cycles.
Nevertheless, I think Ron et al underestimate the far-right danger and its attack on bourgeois-democracy. Current evidence is that Trump really did want to overturn the results of the national election (knowing that this is what he was trying to do). And he was surrounded by people who agreed with this goal. And he had support across the country from people who agreed with him in local and national legislatures and local governments and Republican organizations. Over 40 percent of the population supported him; he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016, To this day, there are tens of millions who believe that he is the legitimate president. This popular minority overlaps with a smaller semi-fascist white-supremacist movement. Trump has failed to simply take over the Republican machinery at all levels, but the Trumpists havetaken over much of the party and state legislatures. As mentioned, the Supreme Court has abandoned Roberts’ gradualist rightist approach for a far-right turn.
None of this implies a fascist civil war in the immediate future. But it is part of a general turn, an extreme turn to the right, with a sadly inadequate response on the left. The worse the economy and environment, the greater the conflicts.
As to Ron’s question, I haven’t thought much about it. DJT tried to overthrow bourgeois democracy by illegal means. I’m all for the government arresting him and trying him and jailing him, and don’t particularly care how they do it. I strongly doubt that any such thing will happen, however.
Thanks for the exchange of views.
Wayne
July 4
Wayne and All,
Wayne: Here are my disagreements with what you write.
I don’t think Ron’s ‘main point’ was that a successful coup was totally unlikely. I think his main point was that to think that the overthrow of bourgeois democracy was in the offing is to offer up theater of the absurd.
I have emphasized (repeatedly) that the Keystone Cops aspect of Trump’s antics aside, he was trying (desperately and foolishly) to find a juridical and/or legislative means by which the election could be called in his favor. He failed in these attempts. There was no insurrectionary coup. More significantly, there was no attempt at such. A coup that does not challenge the army, the police, the congress/parliament, the judiciary and the other institutions of the state is not a coup. This is NOT (primarily) a matter of incompetence; rather it is a matter of basic objectives. When Congress would not act ‘lawfully’ to alter the election results, Trump went home. End of story. (Mike has elaborated on this point significantly in his recent post.)
You write that Ron and others ‘underestimate the danger of the far right and it’s attack on bourgeois democracy.’ Your lead point is that Trump ‘really was’ (knowingly) trying to overturn the results of the national election. As I have indicated above and elsewhere, I don’t think there is a doubt in the world that this is what he was trying to do. Why would he bring a bajillion lawsuits to do just this if he wasn’t trying to do just this? Why would he make his arm-twisting phone calls to people with the theoretical (i.e., arguably constitutional authority to challenge or change vote totals if he wasn’t trying to change the results? Why January 6??? Ron and et. al. can speak for themselves, but in my view, proving this point (and suggesting that the ets and the als are blind to it) hardly justifies the charge that I and others are underestimating the danger of the far right. Quite the contrary. It reveals the extent to which you vastly overestimate the threat to bourgeois democracy (which has its own implications, but let’s save that for another time). Bush may we’ll have ‘stolen’ an election from Gore. Had he been sleazier (than he was), would that have made the outcome an assault on/the overthrow of bourgeois democracy? Hardly. I’m pretty sure Kennedy DID steal the election from Nixon—and here we are sixty years later, with ol’ bourgeois democracy just rolling along.
Beyond this, you point to all the support Trump and Trumpism has. I’m not impressed. The Republican Party by all rights should have a cakewalk in ousting the Democrats, certainly in 2022 and perhaps in 2024. There’s only one thing standing in the way—Trump. The powers that be will find a way to remove him or they will go down to a greater defeat in 2024 than they did in 2020. Trump is not the dynamic head of a fascist movement that is about to ‘break through.’ Quite the contrary: he is singing his swan song…only he doesn’t know it.
Rod
July 4
Ron et al deny that the events of Jan 6 and around it was an attempted coup because it was so stupid and poorly prepared that bourgeois democracy was never in any threat.
I claim that these events were an attempted coup because…. well…. a coup was attempted.
Wayne
July 4
definition of “coup”
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government
the sudden removal or displacement of authority that takes place outside the bounds of the law
Robin
July 4
Everybody:
The five most damaging allegations against Trump from the Jan. 6 hearings — so far (msn.com)
Ha, ha, ha! This is ridiculous!
Except for the allegation about the Electoral Defense Fund (possible fraud), it’s all highly questionable inferences (Ivanka thought something, therefore Donald had to have thought the same thing), or hearsay (someone says they heard someone talking about something that Donald might have said or done) and the allegation of fraud is borderline, at best.
It is my view that those who truly believe that Trump is guilty of “sedition,” “treason,” “seditious conspiracy,” “conspiracy to disrupt or overthrow the lawful government,” or anything like that should put their money where their mouths are and come out for a penalty that truly fits the crime (death or life in prison). The fact that they won’t do this proves how much of this is bullshit.
I WOULD care if the ruling class meted out a punishment to Donald Trump that is grossly out of proportion to the crime he actually committed (on the outside, “inciting to riot”).
On a different note. I think the American people should revoke Donald Trump’s license that authorized him to be a boob. Alternatively, we could arrest him on some bogus charges and then have him shot while “attempting to escape.”
Ron
July 4
Ron,
Do you square your view on ‘unfair’ charges against Trump with not supporting (or opposing) impeachment because it is criminal prosecution rather than parliamentary procedure? Or is consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?
Rod
July 4
Rod,
I don’t see my positions on the two issues as being inconsistent. Re impeachment, I felt that impeachment was a ploy (an exaggeration, a cheap maneuver) used by the Democrats to go after/discredit Donald Trump (any stick to hit him with), as part of their factional warfare, in which, in general, I do not take sides (just as I don’t vote for either party but oppose both). (The Democrats were particularly annoyed with Donald because he had “stolen” their election; after all, Hillary Clinton was “supposed to win”.)
On the issue of unfairness, I don’t see it as taking sides but of pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Democrats/anti-Trump Republicans (and the ruling elite as a whole) who lie and make false charges when it suits their purposes, in the hypothetical case of throwing the book at Donald Trump for acts that don’t come close to warranting it. I believe in the truth and in justice and fairness. As a member of this society, Donald Trump deserves the same rights as any other person, including the right to a fair trial, and not a show trial, and to be punished according to the seriousness of whatever crimes it is proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he actually committed. He’s being accused, essentially, of insurrection, sedition, and treason. I think that, at most, he might properly be accused of “inciting to riot” and then pled down to a lesser charge. Did he exercise bad judgment? Yes. Did he say some things he shouldn’t have said? Yes. Was he irresponsible? Yes. Is he an insurrectionist, a seditious felon, a traitor? No.
Mostly, if it comes to it, Donald Trump will be tried for being a nuisance, for throwing some stones into the political machinery of American capitalism, and for daring to step out of the role that he was assigned to. Donald Trump was a creation of the liberal media, who used him (producing and promoting his TV shows, ghost-writing his books, etc.) to make a lot of money and perhaps, at some point down the road, to be being politically useful. Remember, for decades Donald Trump was a prominent liberal; he was personal friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton (Donald invited Bill to play golf at his country club in Briarcliff Manor, NY). He was a loyal advocate of all the Democrats’/liberals’ important issues, including reproductive rights. Despite this, he had the nerve to betray his creators, to switch parties, and to become an independent political figure. Specifically, he decided to listen to and follow Rick Santorum’s advice about appealing to disgruntled white workers who had been betrayed by the Democrats, who had allowed (even facilitated) their decent-paying jobs to be exported and their unions, cities, towns, communities, and lives to be destroyed, while being told that they were nothing but a bunch of white supremacists, at best, a basket of deplorables (in Hillary Clinton’s telling phrase), that the Democrats didn’t need anymore.
When, to the surprise of everyone, he managed to secure the Republican nomination for president in 2016, and then, to even great gasps, to out-maneuver Hillary Clinton (who destroyed herself with her elitism and arrogance) in the election and get himself elected president, he had really tickled the lion’s nose. Virtually the entire elite was out to get him (including the Republican Establishment, who were too frightened of him and his political base to come out openly against him). In 2020, he was soundly (and fairly and squarely) beaten by Joe Biden, a man with almost no charisma, the political equivalent of white bread. And then, on January 6, 2021, Donald Trump, who cannot control what comes out of his mouth, became his own worst enemy, stepping into, and sliding around in, a pile a manure, for which he is now paying the price.
So, Donald Trump is not, in fact, being tried for insurrection, sedition, and treason. He is being tried for being disloyal and irresponsible, for fucking up the relatively smooth running of the American political system that normally works in the interests of the capitalist elite, of which he is a (renegade) member. He is being punished, in essence, for refusing to be a puppet. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” anyone?
Ron
July 4
Everyone,
I feel Ron’s characterizations of Trump and his elite opponents and what our attitude should be towards these opponents going after him nails it.
Mike
July 5
Ron, Mike and All,
I am persuaded that indifference to injustice, is indifference to injustice, even if it is injustice to the likes of Donald Trump. Since I do not believe Trump carried out a treasonous, insurrectionary coup, I would oppose such charges (in the highly unlikely event they were to be pressed).
Although I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert, I do think it is reasonable to believe that Trump committed serious crimes. Robin mentioned witness tampering, election tampering, and conspiracy to obstruct Congress. I mentioned inciting to riot. I would have no objection to Trump being charged with these crimes. I see no injustice in this. Do we agree?
Rod
July 5
yes: I am in favor of actual crimes (per existing law) being investigated and prosecuted, no matter who committed those crimes.
and I agree that indifference to injustice is exactly that
but
I would support assault and battery on, for example, someone about to set a rifle to their shoulder and fire off some rounds into a crowd of people. even tossing said person off the roof.
Robin
July 5
Wayne,
In your most recent post, you summarize your primary difference with Ron, Mike and me as follows: “Ron et al deny that the events of Jan 6 and around it was an attempted coup because it was so stupid and poorly prepared that bourgeois democracy was never in any threat.” This is a false characterization. Trump’s actions certainly were foolish and bumbling (how could something significantly led by Rudolph Giuliani be otherwise), but this (or at least this alone) is NOT the heart of the matter. Each of us has described, in different ways, the essential elements that define a coup/the overthrow of bourgeois democracy and have argued that these elements were ENTIRELY ABSENT from Trump’s actions.
Ron discussed the August 1917 Kornilov coup as a case where bourgeois democracy WAS threatened—Kornilov was the Supreme Commander of the Russian army; he marched on Petrograd with the intent of overthrowing the Provisional Government, restoring law and order (i.e., crushing the Soviets), and restoring Tsar Nicholas II to the throne (or occupying it himself). Trump’s actions bore no resemblance to this.
Mike made two basic points: 1) Had Trump succeeded in gaining some type of ‘recount,’ his second term would have, of necessity, left the constitution and its three branches of government intact. This is hardly the overthrow of bourgeois democracy; 2) Mike also asked: “Where was Trump’s alliance with any significant portion of the military, police and security bodies? Where was a competently organized storm troops or street, neighborhood and workplace political force…?” Again, these are the hallmarks of a government overthrow.
I made these same fundamental points, pointing out that Trump pursued a ‘constitutional’ strategy in his attempt to alter the election results. He filed umpteen lawsuits, taking several all the way to the Supreme Court; when these failed, he did not attempt to overthrow or subvert the Supreme Court. He put enormous pressure on various election officials and several Secretaries of State to ‘find votes;’ when these efforts failed, none of the noncompliant officials were jailed or shot. He may a last-ditch effort to pressure VP Mike Pence to refuse to certify the vote count on behalf of Congress, seemingly believing that ‘raising hell’ might produce this outcome; when this, too, failed, Congress was not dismissed, no members were arrested (or shot), and Trump did not call out the army and proclaim himself President.
In short, looked at from every angle, the notion that Trump attempted to carry out an insurrectionary coup is simply preposterous.
Moreover, it is critical to recognize who seeks to benefit from pushing this fiction—the Democratic Party, of course, by portraying their opponents (Trump and just about every Republican other than Liz Cheney) as treasonous criminals while wrapping themselves in the mantle of ‘the defenders of American democracy.’ Some of my progressive friends ask why the masses don’t see what’s happening and act. It never seems to occur to them that these ‘ignorant masses’ may well see what is really going on far more clearly than my friends do.
So: Let’s pursue our disagreements on this important issue. (Important because I think the implications of your view lead to the abandonment of uncompromising opposition to both political parties and the system itself, even though this view has not led you there). But in pursuing the issue, I ask that you not characterize our position as the belief that no attempted insurrectionary overthrow of the government took place because of how poorly organized it was. Trump’s actions WERE colossally inept (for which he and the Republican Party are going to pay a steep price); but his actions WERE NOT an ‘attempted coup’ for the many, many reasons discussed above and previously.
Rod
July 6
I agree to some extent, but also direct attention back to these broader definitions of a coup:
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government
the sudden removal or displacement of authority that takes place outside the bounds of the law
while other definitions may hew more closely to the parameters below, the above make it at least plausible how some can sincerely frame the Trump Club’s machinations as an attempted coup.
Robin
July 6
Robin,
For all the reasons I have discussed, I think the meanings of these definitions are other than what you suggest (Trump’s actions).
Rod
July 6
Right: you disagree for various stated reasons. I’m just saying that there is the possibility for people to believe his actions fit these definitions, so that they support what isn’t to them a bogus charge.
I make no judgment as to actions and definitions; just asserting that reasonable people may disagree.
Robin
July 6
Many people believe many things for many reasons. More than a few believe the 2020 election was ‘stolen.’
Rod
July 6
in my view that isn’t the same.
Robin
July 6
Robin,
My response is: a) a “sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government”* is not what Trump attempted, and b) those (in power) who say that this is what he did have a very specific agenda/reason for saying so. But to be redundant. many people believe many things for many reasons.
Had Trump succeeded, it would have been the same government, with the same constitution, the same judiciary, the same parliament, and the same executive. And, for all I know, one or more of those bodies might well have reversed any initial ‘success’ Trump might have had. Or not. Gore might have chosen to contest that awarding of the 2000 election to Bush. Win or lose, neither party would have ‘seized power from a government’—everything (in both cases) remained within the existing government and its constitutional framework. If your point is that Trump did things that are illegal, I don’t disagree. Others before him have done the same. This does not equate to a seditious overthrow of the government (a coup, that is).
Rod
July 11
Everyone,
I’m coming late to this discussion, but here are a few of my thoughts:
- To call Trump & Co’s. actions a ‘coup’ is a stretch. Whether it had a chance of succeeding or not isn’t the question. (I don’t think it had a ghost of a chance). But as others have written, Trump & Co. used, abused and twisted every legal and semi-legal lever to remain in power. I think Trump’s strategy was to persuade Pence from withholding certification to create a constitutional crisis which would then be decided in his favor by ‘his’ Supreme Court. (Not). I wrote something similar last year and despite the new evidence that has emerged, my basic position hasn’t changed. And, as Mike has pointed out, even if Trump had succeeded, the usual institutions of state would have remained. No suspension of Congress, the courts or the normal executive. And no attempt to invoke emergency rule as Marcos 1 and Assads 1 & 2 did in their countries.
- On the ground the rioters’ main demand was ‘Stop the Steal’ and, maybe, ‘Hang Mike Pence’. No one called for doing away with Congress or any other state institution. So to characterize the rioters’ actions as an ‘insurrection’ also is a stretch.
- Many of those who throw around terms like ‘coup’ and ‘insurrection’ use it for nothing more than partisan purposes; that is, to get as many people as frantic as possible to the (Democratic) polls in November. At the same time, they aim to use the riots as excuses for more state repression as Bush 2 & Co. (and Democrats) did with 9/11.
- Trump has been guilty of all sorts of chicanery but proving it ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ has been and will be very difficult. Stupid as he is, Trump always has been smart enough to leave loopholes and slough off the dirty work on underlings. Here in New York the new DA, Alvin Bragg, put a fast-track financial crimes case against Trump up for reevaluation precisely because of this. Going forward and losing would, politically, be worse than continuing to build a case or not prosecute at all.
Bill
July 11
Bill,
Thanks for these cogent thoughts. I agree on all points.
Rod
July 12
Possibly beside the point: I think there was a declare-martial-law plan in place that depended upon Antifa showing up and violence erupting.
The legal definition of a coup doesn’t require the suspension of the institutions of a state. A coup is a seizure of power.
4. As for indicting Trump: civil suits have a better chance of succeeding at this point.
Robin
July 12
Robin,
Did Bush seize power from Gore? Was this, too, a coup? If not, what differentiates? (I don’t find speculating about martial law, for which I have seen no credible evidence, a meaningful answer.)
Rod
July 12
No and no.
> If not, what differentiates?
obstructing Congress. false slates of electors. baseless lawsuits. election tampering. witness tampering. not sure which of these and what of Trump’s provable beyond a… etc. etc. involvement in same will rise to indictable offense
but—I repeat:
absent any of that, Trump’s actions, words, and inaction leave him open to civil suits by anyone injured or the families of those who died as a result of the Capitol riot. even the families of Ashli Babbitt and Roseann Boyland. and America is nothing if not litigious.
Robin
July 12
Robin,
Second issue first. I am not discussing whether Trump is liable for civil suits; I have no disagreement with your assertion that he is open to civil suits.
I am discussing coups and insurrections. Let’s take your points on this issue one at a time:
1) Obstruction of Congress. Was Congress obstructed or did it carry out its constitutional function? (It carried out its required constitutional function.) Was there an attempt to obstruct Congress, and a several-hour delay on the required vote? (Yes, there was.) Does this constitute a coup or insurrection? No, it does not. Obstruction of Congress and insurrection are two different things. Those (particularly the Democratic Party) who would make them one thing are pursuing a politically motivated miscarriage of justice, such as it is. I have mentioned previously that in the late 1960s, I (and Mary and Don, for those who know them) joined approximately 400 welfare mothers from Milwaukee (led by Father Groppi) in occupying the Wisconsin State Capitol building for approximately 6 hours to protest cuts in welfare payments and to demand jobs. The legislature could not function while we were there. Though in the end the participants weren’t charged with crimes, we were threatened with various charges (which likely included obstruction of the State Legislature) in an effort to get us to leave. Were we guilty of obstructing the state legislature? We likely were. Were we carrying out an insurrectionary coup? Were we involved in a seditious conspiracy? The allegation that we were is ludicrous (though it is also dangerous—think of the chilling effect on protest such charges would have). So, let’s cross obstruction of Congress off the list of proofs of an insurrectionary coup (an act of treason which, by the way, is a capital crime).
2). False slates of electors. Again, a possible/probable crime. Like jury tampering. Like false petitions in support of a candidacy. Like improper use of funds, failure to declare funds or other (hardly unheard of) campaign financial malfeasances. These crimes do constitute a coup, or (wow!) have we had a host of coups (coup attempts) over the past 200+ years.
3). Baseless lawsuits. Well, talk about a chilling effect on First Amendment rights—baseless lawsuits can be tantamount to treason??? Surely you don’t mean this.
4). Election tampering, witness tampering. See #2 above.
Voila!
Even though you appear to be responding to my question as to whether Bush/Gore was a coup (the above is your list of ‘what differentiates’ Trump from Bush/Gore), perhaps you are merely arguing that Trump has/may have committed crimes. I have no quarrel with this—until someone says the crimes include seditious conspiracy, insurrection/coup or treason. To the degree that this what you are saying, I don’t think you have made a convincing case.
Rod
The attempt to commit a crime is charged as a crime. Attempted bank robbery for example. So, the failure of the attempts to obstruct tamper etc. are chargeable offenses, if evidence is sufficient.
But no, not necessarily insurrection nor attempted coup—though given the legal definition of “coup” I think reasonable people can disagree.
As for insurrection, many of the rioters described their action as equivalent to the revolution way back when, which in fact was insurrection.
So there too: room for disagreement.
My own perspective veers away from “coup” and “insurrection” to the actual attempted crimes I referred to.
Do I think Trump would have done anything, including actions that would fit the definition of “sedition” and even “treason”? Absolutely. But he didn’t get there.
So, I’d say we more or less agree.
Robin
July 12
Robin,
Based on this, I think we mostly agree. Trump can’t be tried for his fantasies or his stupidity, as such. (This is not to say that intent doesn’t matter in the commission of an actual crime.) I think Trump likely committed several crimes, and perhaps will be charged and tried for some of them. Whether that will be DOJ prosecution remains to be seen; I think District Court/State/civil suits are the most likely actions. My heart doesn’t bleed for Trump if charges are limited to the those you have explicitly suggested (though even here they may be some significant double standards).
Since January 6, my views and concerns have remained these:
- People urged by a President who told them an election be stolen should be defended against ridiculous charges such as treason, seditious conspiracy, and insurrection. They were pawns in Trump’s game. Some of them did commit violent acts.
- Trump himself did not carry out a coup or insurrection in any sense that the words are commonly understood. He pushed the ‘legal’ ways he might reverse the election to the limit (and in doing he may have been complicit in specific illegal acts). When this approach failed, he left office (peacefully, if not grumpily and whining like a baby).
- Those (first and foremost the Democratic Party) who from the get-go labeled January 6 as an insurrectionary coup, and who have worked since to portray Trump as the treasonous coup leader, have a specific political agenda —to discredit Trump and the Republican Party. Most of these people are lawyers, and they actually do know better. In other words, there are people who are duped by lies about the ‘stolen election,’ and there are people who are duped by lies about the ‘coup d’état that nearly overthrew the Constitution and democracy.’ Such are our two parties.
Rod
July 12
Did I not say in my earlier reply that I consider attempted coup/insurrection non-viable?
“My own perspective veers away from “coup” and “insurrection” to the actual attempted crimes I referred to.”
And an attempted crime is a crime in this legal system.
Robin
July 12
Robin,
Yes. This is why I said I thought we were in agreement.
Rod