NEWS ANALYSIS
SEE ALSO: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/06/us/jan-6-capitol-riot
A Year Later, Jan. 6 Becomes Just Another Wedge
in a Divided Nation
The nearly universal outrage after the assault on the
Capitol has reverted to separate blue and red realities, and former President
Donald J. Trump has remained the dominant force in his party.
Peter Baker
By Peter
Baker
Jan. 6,
2022, 3:00 a.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-riot-aftermath.html
WASHINGTON
— For a day or two or maybe a week after the
can-you-believe-this-is-happening-in-America events of a year ago, there were
those who thought that the shock to the system might upend politics in a
profound way.
That the
country might speak as one against an attempt to overturn democracy. That the
tribal divisions of the era might be overcome by a shared sense of revulsion.
That a president who encouraged a mob that attacked Congress in a vain bid to
hold onto power might be ostracized or at least fade into exile.
That was
then. A year after the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol in which supporters of
President Donald J. Trump trying to stop final recognition of a certified free
and fair election burst through barricades, pummeled police officers and forced
lawmakers to flee for their lives, what is most striking is not what has
changed, but what has not.
America has
not come together to defend its democracy; it has only split further apart. Lies
and disinformation spread by the former president have so permeated the
political ecosphere that nearly universal outrage has reverted to separate blue
and red realities. Far from shunned for what even his own vice president deemed
an unconstitutional attempt to thwart the will of the voters, Mr. Trump remains
the undisputed powerhouse of his party — and a viable candidate to reclaim the
White House in three years.
“I just
kept hoping that that was going to change after the election,” said Olivia
Troye, a lifelong Republican who worked on the White House coronavirus task
force before breaking with Mr. Trump in 2020 and joining efforts to defeat him.
“And then with the events after the election and Jan. 6, it became clear this
was something that was going to be even more dangerous and pervasive than one
man sitting in the Oval Office.”
The first
anniversary of the assault on the Capitol serves as a chance to take stock of a
country still trying to make sense of it all. Rather than a wake-up call
highlighting for all the fragility of the American experiment, the violence
that besieged Washington turns out to have been one more chapter in the
polarizing, partisan, ideological and cultural struggle over truth and
consequences in the modern era.
The
disparate approaches to Thursday’s anniversary reflect the fraught condition of
the nation’s politics. Rather than join in unified commemoration, President
Biden and congressional Democrats will hold events marking the moment while
Republican leaders plan to absent themselves. Mr. Trump originally planned to
hold his first post-presidential news conference on Thursday but abruptly
changed his mind.
While Mr.
Biden and the Democrats describe the dangers to the constitutional order from
what amounted to an anti-democratic insurrection, Mr. Trump and his allies rail
against a congressional investigating committee and seek to rewrite history by
repeating wild and false claims about a supposedly stolen election and
asserting that the riot was born out of justified anger.
“Why is the
primary reason for the people coming to Washington D.C., which is the fraud of the
2020 Presidential Election, not the primary topic of the Unselect Committee’s
investigation?” Mr. Trump said in a statement this week. “This was, indeed, the
Crime of the Century.”
In fact, no
matter how many times Mr. Trump says the 2020 election was stolen, not a shred
of evidence has emerged to prove it. Not one independent authority — no judge,
no prosecutor, no governor, no election agency, no news media organization —
has found any credible indication of fraud on a scale that would have changed
the outcome.
An
extensive, monthslong review by The Associated Press of every fraud claim in
six battleground states targeted by Mr. Trump found fewer than 475 suspicious
votes or attempted votes. That was not nearly enough to swing the results in a
single state, much less the three or more necessary to tip the Electoral
College, even if all of them had been counted for Mr. Biden, which they were
not.
But the
extent to which Mr. Trump has shaped the narrative, at least within his own
party, would have defied belief a year ago when leaders on both sides of the
aisle were seething with indignation at what he had unleashed. At the time,
even allies thought Mr. Trump had forever sullied his name in the history
books, as indicated by the subsequent investigation.
While
intruders marauded through the Capitol, Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host,
texted the White House chief of staff imploring him to get the president to
call off the mob, warning that “he is destroying his legacy.” Her colleague
Brian Kilmeade likewise texted that Mr. Trump was “destroying everything you
have accomplished.”
Today, it
has become heresy among conservatives to question Mr. Trump’s legacy. The
cabinet secretaries and White House aides who resigned in protest of his role
in the violence now largely keep to themselves. Many corporations that vowed to
halt donations to Republican lawmakers who voted to overturn the election have
quietly reopened the contribution spigot. The congressional Republicans who
angrily denounced the president after their headquarters was invaded have gone
silent or even made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, all but pretending it never
happened.
“It’s a
pretty sobering lesson about human nature,” said Representative Jamie Raskin of
Maryland, a Democrat who led the House managers prosecuting Mr. Trump in a
Senate impeachment trial and now serves on the House select committee
investigating Jan. 6.
In an
interview, Mr. Raskin said he had ordered books about cults and deprogramming
to try to understand his Republican colleagues. “It’s amazing to me how many of
these Republican leaders have just fallen into line like lemmings,” he said. “I
tell them when it’s all over, they’re only going to be fit to sell flowers and
incense at Dulles Airport. They have basically surrendered their critical
thinking skills.”
Mr. Raskin,
who this week published “Unthinkable: Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American
Democracy,” his own book on Jan. 6 and the subsequent Senate trial, at one
point a year ago thought enough Republicans were fed up with Mr. Trump to
convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact, just seven Republican
senators voted to convict, short of the 17 required along with Democrats for a
two-thirds majority, but it was the most bipartisan Senate vote in presidential
impeachment history.
A year
later, neither Mr. Raskin nor anyone else can say for sure that even those
seven Republicans would still back conviction. “Rejecting the fact that Joe
Biden won the 2020 election is now the organizing principle of the G.O.P.,” he
said. “That is a terrifying and astonishing new reality that we have to contend
with.”
For many
Republicans, even those who privately despise Mr. Trump and agree that Mr.
Biden was legitimately elected, Jan. 6 is a topic to avoid. They bristle at the
focus on it, seeing it not as a good-faith effort to find out what happened but
a partisan weapon to tear them down and distract from the Democrats’ own failed
policies.
And then
there are the Republicans still firmly in the former president’s camp and eager
to take on the fight and amplify his claims, like his onetime chief strategist,
Stephen K. Bannon, who is hosting a podcast with other Trump allies on the
anniversary to counterprogram the Democratic-led events.
Newt
Gingrich, the former House speaker, said that “Jan. 6 is going to be a disaster
rather than an asset for Democrats” that will cost them seats in the November
midterm elections. While he said those who broke into the Capitol should be
brought to justice and the event investigated, he argued that Democrats were
covering up their own complicity in not providing adequate security for the
Capitol.
“The
process of the select committee is only getting more corrupt and destructive,”
Mr. Gingrich wrote in a newsletter this week. “Using an outrageous, painful and
unacceptable event (which I fully condemn) to smear your opponents rather than
find the truth will ultimately be repudiated by the American people.”
The House
investigation. A select committee is scrutinizing the causes of the Jan. 6 riot
at the U.S. Capitol, which occurred as Congress met to formalize Joe Biden’s
election victory amid various efforts to overturn the results. Here are some
people being examined by the panel:
Donald
Trump. The former president’s movement and communications on Jan. 6 appear to
be a focus of the inquiry. But Mr. Trump has attempted to shield his records,
invoking executive privilege. The dispute is making its way through the courts.
Mark
Meadows. Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, who initially provided the panel with a
trove of documents that showed the extent of his role in the efforts to
overturn the election, is now refusing to cooperate. The House voted to
recommend holding Mr. Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress.
Scott Perry
and Jim Jordan. The Republican representatives of Pennsylvania and Ohio are
among a group of G.O.P. congressmen who were deeply involved in efforts to
overturn the election. Mr. Perry has refused to meet with the panel.
Phil
Waldron. The retired Army colonel has been under scrutiny since a 38-page
PowerPoint document he circulated on Capitol Hill was turned over to the panel
by Mr. Meadows. The document contained extreme plans to overturn the election.
Fox News
anchors. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Brian Kilmeade texted Mr. Meadows
during the Jan. 6 riot urging him to persuade Mr. Trump to make an effort to
stop it. The texts were part of the material that Mr. Meadows had turned over
to the panel.
Steve
Bannon. The former Trump aide has been charged with contempt of Congress for
refusing to comply with a subpoena, claiming protection under executive
privilege even though he was an outside adviser. His trial is scheduled for
next summer.
Michael
Flynn. Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser attended an Oval Office
meeting on Dec. 18 in which participants discussed seizing voting machines and
invoking certain national security emergency powers. Mr. Flynn has filed a
lawsuit to block the panel’s subpoenas.
Jeffrey
Clark. The little-known official repeatedly pushed his colleagues at the
Justice Department to help Mr. Trump undo his loss. The panel has recommended
that Mr. Clark be held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to
cooperate.
John
Eastman. The lawyer has been the subject of intense scrutiny since writing a
memo that laid out how Mr. Trump could stay in power. Mr. Eastman was present
at a meeting of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel that has become a prime focus
of the panel.
In fact, at
the time of the attack, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, shared control of the
Capitol with the Senate majority leader, who at the time was Mitch McConnell,
Republican of Kentucky. Republicans have made no attempt to blame Mr. McConnell
for the security breach or for failing to prepare for an attack.
As unlikely
as it seemed 365 days ago, Mr. Trump emerged from the wreckage of Jan. 6 still
the dominant force within the party. Those who speak against him are purged,
and his endorsement is the most coveted asset in almost any Republican primary.
One Republican senator privately explained his reluctance to break with Mr.
Trump by noting that the former president polled better among Republicans in
his state than he did. “You can’t minimize that in terms of the political
reality,” the senator said.
Still, Mr.
Trump is not all-powerful within the party. For months, he has railed against
Mr. McConnell, demanding that Republican senators remove him as their leader.
Republican senators have uniformly ignored Mr. Trump as if his rants were
irrelevant.
And there
are times when Mr. Trump appears not so much in command of his base as a
captive of it. When he urged an Alabama audience in August to get vaccinated
for the coronavirus — a vaccine he helped generate — the crowd booed him.
Taking the point, he avoided bringing up the vaccine again for months.
When he
said in Texas last month that he had received a booster, he was booed again.
This time, he told supporters that although “you shouldn’t be forced to take
it,” they were “playing into their hands,” meaning his opponents, by
denigrating the vaccine. By Wednesday, he pivoted to a full-throated attack on
vaccine mandates. “This is an outrage, and MAGA nation should rise up and
oppose this egregious federal government overreach,” he said in a statement.
If he is at
odds with his base over vaccines, they are in sync on the election and Jan. 6.
Fresh polls have documented the public divide in stark terms. While nearly
three-quarters of all Americans view the storming of the Capitol as an assault
on democracy, about half of Republicans say the rioters were actually the ones
“protecting democracy” and nearly as many think the attack was not even that
violent. While most Americans believe Mr. Biden was elected legitimately, seven
in 10 Republicans think otherwise.
“The truly
dangerous position we’re in now is there are tens of millions of Americans who
are either opposed to or agnostic about whether this country is tied to what we
would think of as core democratic principles,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, the
president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “We missed that. The
reason why it wasn’t a wake-up call is they have already disconnected from the
idea that rule of law matters even if applies to me.”
At the root
of the explosion a year ago were factors beyond just Mr. Trump, including
culture, economics, education, geography and especially race. A study of those
arrested after Jan. 6 conducted by Robert A. Pape, the director of the Chicago
Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago, found that
counties where the white population has been dropping were more likely to have
sent rioters to Washington.
“Trump as
shorthand is easy to talk about and write about, but what if he’s not the
center of gravity of the problem?” said Eddie S. Glaude Jr., the chair of the
department of African American studies at Princeton University.
And a year
later, Mr. Glaude added, the risk is thinking the danger has passed just
because the fences around the Capitol have come down and many of the invaders
have been locked up.
“The front
end of a hurricane is really, really violent and then you have the calm of the
eye,” he said. “But then the tail is coming, and the tail is just as violent as
the front end.”
Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last five presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of six books, most recently "The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III." @peterbakernyt •
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário