Hat tip Red State. This article first appeared in New English Review.
On Friday evening, while the Arizona legislature was still in session voting on bills in the Arizona State Capitol building in Phoenix, several thousand protesters, enraged over the US Supreme Court decision on abortion, descended on the building, threatened to break through the glass doors, vandalized outside monuments, and had to be dispersed by police using tear gas. All the while, lawmakers, many of whom later reported having felt like hostages, were evacuated by police.
The comparisons between this event and the January 6, 2021 event in Washington are obvious though the Arizona incident pales in comparison to the Washington incident. But the question is being asked by many: Was what occurred in Phoenix Friday night an insurrection-as many label January 6, an insurrection designed to stop or influence lawmakers inside who were deliberating on other issues?
Just to be clear, I condemn both incidents. Whether January 6 represented an actual attempted insurrection is a matter for debate, but here is my point: Will the reactions to Friday night be similar to the January 6 reactions? In other words, will there be a US Department of Justice investigation, and will charges be brought against the protesters in Arizona-those that can be identified after an exhaustive investigation? Will those charged be held for a year or so in solidarity confinement? Will there be prison sentences? Will there be Congressional hearings? Will our news media, led by CNN, spend the next year or so condemning what happened in Arizona?
Just askin'.
Of course, to be fair, there are contrasts, especially in terms of severity. Nobody was killed Friday night, no police officers were assaulted or injured, and apparently, nobody actually breached the Capitol building. There was no vote ongoing to validate the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade.
But things did get out of hand in Phoenix, and police had to defend the Capitol from being breached by a mob of thousands of angry protesters while lawmakers were inside conducting the People's business. It went beyond a peaceful protest.
Of course, hypocrisy cuts both ways, and those who would condemn Friday's incident in Phoenix but excuse January 6 can fairly be accused of hypocrisy-whatever you think of the 2020 election and whatever you think of the Supreme Court's decision on abortion. I did not like the results of the 2020 election, and I still have my doubts about what occurred on Election Night in places like Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Milwaukee. I am opposed to abortion, but I think I can understand the anger of those on the other side of the debate.
All of which is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because I condemn both incidents and I concede there are distinctions in terms of severity. But if what happened in Arizona Friday night has disappeared from the news in a couple of days-or not reported at all by certain news sources, then somebody is guilty of hypocrisy.
17 comments:
You're missing some key differences:
The protesters in AZ were upset about a thing that actually happened (the overturning of Roe v. Wade).
The protesters in DC were upset about something that didn't happen. They were egged on by a guy (Trump) who knew it was a lie. You're obviously not watching the January 6 hearings because then you'd know that everyone in his inner circle - including Bill Barr - told him that his allegations of fraud were "bullshit" (Barr's exact words).
You still have your doubts about election night? I'm sorry, but you're up there with flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, and 9/11 truthers - no amount of facts will sway you. How many court cases? Over 60? Even Guliani said (and again, you'd know this if you were wacthing the hearings) said "we have theories but we don't have evidence). The whole thing has been explained again and again. (You're probably going to bring up the fact that Trump was winning until the mail-in ballots were counted, right? I know for a fact that this has been explained to you, but you won't let the fact of the "red mirage" penetrate your head.) Seriously, this is so crazy. Is it really so shocking that a President who lost the popular vote the first time by 3 million and had the lowest approval ratings of any President would actually lose an election? If it wasn't for our antiquated Electoral College, he wouldn't even have a chance.
Trump did everything in his power to stay in office despite the fact that he lost. He pressured various officials. He egged on the crowd. (Yeah, one time he said "be peaceful" but that doesn't change all of the violent rhetoric about fighting and the fact that he didn't call them off when he saw what was going on. And again, HE KNEW IT WAS A LIE!)
So, no, it's not hypocrisy to condemn what happened in DC, which sought to overturn a fair election (despite your completely unjustified "doubts") and to not condemn people who were angry about women losing their right to bodily autonomy due to the fact that the Republicans have rammed through Right-Wing Extremist judges whose views are out of touch with the majority of Americans. Their decision wasn't "conservative". It was regressive and people will be harmed and even killed.
Your whataboutism is straight out of Pravda, comrade. Do you even care about what's real and what isnt'?
Just askin'.
Anonymous,
You really need to go back and read what I actually wrote. I said I have my doubts about what happened. I did not say flat out the election was stolen. When Barr was asked by Congress, he said "not to the extent it would have altered the election" (I am paraphrasing.)
If you think the electoral college is antiquated, let's go a straight up national majority popular vote. Then NY and California will decide the election and the rest of the countty can get drunk on election night.
Yeah, you "have your doubts". My dad has doubts about the moon landing. Doesn't mean that it should be taken seriously.
You're splitting hairs with what Barr said. The point is that Trump's claims of a stolen election were lies. His inner circle told him they were lies. He knows they're lies. He knew it when he originally said it. He knows it now while he continues to say it. Your "I have my doubts" is the Diet Coke of The Big Lie. Same taste, less filling.
Have New York and California decide the election? That's not the way it works. People will decide the election and everybody's vote will be equal. No reason why somebody's vote in Wyoming should count more than somebody's in Los Angeles.
You may find this hard to believe, but what Trump says is of little concern to me. He is no longer president. How often have I even mentioned him, especially in these posts you are responding to?
I may have my doubts, but you, on the other hand, are an absolutist. It's all BS and we don't need to worry about election fraud. Go back and read about the 1960 election in Illinois and West Virginia. I find it interesting why liberals are so opposed to a simple thing like voter ID.
I bring up Trump because you're trying to compare what happened in AZ to what happened in DC. If we're going to compare them, we need to look at the causes for both. To talk about what happened in DC and NOT talk about Trump is to leave out a key detail (if not THE key detail).
I'm not an absolutist. I'm willing to believe that there was fraud. However, at every turn, Trump's team has failed to provide any evidence. As for voter ID, I would concede that it's necessary if those who are demanding it offered evidence for voter fraud. They haven't.
I don't believe in Bigfoot because nobody provides any real evidence for his existence. If somebody actually captures one, I'll change my mind. Same thing with voter fraud, the Bigfoot of conservative grievances.
Until then, I'll go with the more likely scenario - Republicans know that if more people vote, they will lose more elections.
I fully pointed out the distinctions between Arizona and Washington. Beyond that, the post was about those who protested in both places and not about Trump. He gave his standard give em hell stump speech, and it was not appropriate at that time. You can talk all you want about his moral responsibility to tone down his rhetoric and his lateness in telling people to go home, but there is no legal basis to prosecute him for that speech.
Like I said, if you look at the 1960 election of JFK, you will find Bigfoot.
I won't speak for Republicans because I am not one, but as for me, I think every eligible person should vote. Not those who are not eligible. You are correct that it has not been proven that the election of Biden was stolen, but I am concerned about all the reports that came out of places like Philly, Atlanta and Milwaukee.
So, if I look at something that happened 60 years ago, I'll find evidence of why we need voter ID today? I hope you stretched before making that leap.
Forgive me for assuming that you were a Republican. People assume that I'm a duck because I have webbed feet, feathers, and a bill. I also waddle and say "quack" a lot.
Glad that you're still concerned about the long-since debunked reports from Philly, Atlanta, etc. I'm still concerned about the guy on the grassy knoll and all those reports of Elvis at the grocery store.
But let's bring it all back to your original point - is there hypocrisy between the reaction towards these two events?
No. Because they're totally different.
(Hope you're watching today's hearings. Trump and his cronies knew. There's no question about it now.)
Duck,
You do sound like a duck come to think of it. No, I'm not watching the hearings, and nobody else is either, other than ducks like you.
A quick Google search shows that 20 million people watched them.
"Nobody"
But hey, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to something that contradicts what you want to be true.
I let the chips fall where they may, but the Jan 6 commission is a one-sided affair, hearsay testimony, and no cross-examination. Who on that panel is defending Trump? Now you have this Cassidy gal whose testimony is open to some serious challenges. Keep me posted.
You know that the original proposal was to create a completely bipartisan commission, and a lot of Republicans were on board? McConnell struck that down.
Still, most of the witnesses have been Republicans. So, I guess it's one-sided in the sense that nobody on Trump's side is willing to testify.
Trump should come down himself. Hillary Clinton testified for 11 hours about Benghazi. What's Trump afraid of?
Hillary Clinton was secretary of State and cabinet members routinely testify before Congress, not presidents. The Jan 6 committee is not a search for truth, it's a one-sided witch hunt. If I were Trump I wouldn't testify either. The Republicans wanted to put Jim Jordan on the panel but couldn't.
So, a President is above the law then? Or is it just when it's a Republican?
As for putting Jim Jordan on the committee - that would be like putting members of The Family in the jury for Charles Manson.
I realize that calling it a "witch hunt" is easy and keeps you from having to think about it anymore, but the fact is that several of the people who testified were Trump supporters all the way up until he tried to overturn the election.
I mean, at this point one has to be in complete denial of reality to think that Trump was totally innocent. It should trouble anyone who cares about democracy and the rule of law.
Nobody is above the law but how many times have you seen a president or ex president dragged into the testify. Let the truth come out and if Trump did wrong shame on him, but this hearing is hardly a fair and impartial search for the truth. Look at all the questions surrounding this Cassidy woman's testimony.
The issue is not whether Trump is totally innocent in a moral sense according to public opinion. You can condemn his words just as I condemn Chuck Schumer's words about the Supreme Court. The question is whether Trump bears any criminal responsibility for January 6.
And you have a problem with Jordan on the committee but do you have a problem with Adam Schiff on that committee? And pls don't bring up Lynn Cheney. She hates Trump with a passion.
We'll see what this brings out, but to me it smells just like those two impeachment processes against Trump.
There are questions surrounding Cassidy's testimony. However, she's hardly the only person who's come forward. Even if her entire testimony can be discounted, there are a whole lot of other smoking guns out there. I (Not sure why we should automatically trust those who are calling her into question either. Let's see who corroborates her story.)
I don't know how you can decisively say that this isn't a search for the truth when you don't seem to be even watching it.
You can't compare Jim Jordan versus Adam Schiff in this case. It's not about bias, it's about the fact that Jordan is a name that's coming up in testimony. Like I said, it's like getting a Manson Family member to be on ol' Charlie's jury.
As for Cheney hating Trump, does it even occur to you that maybe she has good reason to hate him? How many of his former cronies and allies have turned on him just since he was President? This man has a long history of being a grifter/conman from Trump University to Trump Steaks to all kinds of shady business dealings. I'm no fan of Cheney myself, but she seems to be in pretty good company. More than one witness has openly stated that before this whole ordeal that they actively wanted him to be President and voted for the man.
Let's be honest about the impeachment process. Did that go no further because there was no evidence of wrongdoing? Or did it go no further because his party had enough power to see that it went no further? We could even ask the same of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Was he innocent or did his party protect him? I bet we agree on that answer to that. I wish you could be honest about Trump though.
You're ultimately right though - has a crime been committed? I feel that with absolute certainty that Trump is morally responsible for what happened. I'm not sure if he knew he was lying or he's so unhinged that he lives in his own reality - either one is problematic. But is it a crime to put pressure on election officials and say "I just want to find 11,780 votes" to the Republican Secretary of State?
I don't know about that. But it's concerning. And if a Democrat did the exact same thing, you know that you'd be all over how guilty they are. I would be too though.
I can agree to disagree respectfully with that. I have always said that Trump is a jerk-but not the boogy man his enemies make him out to be.
But tell me the truth: Doesn't it bother you the whole story of Trump's alleged collusion with Russian interference in the 2016 election? It has been pretty well established that it was cooked up by the DNC and Clinton campaign with the participation of high-ranking FBI officials and the willing help of the media.
As far as I am concerned, both impeachment trials were bogus. Why should I trust the Jan 6 Commission?
Post a Comment