Unveiling the Republican Shade of the January 6 Incident
Jefferson McIsaac
The peculiarity of labeling a mob's behavior, shouting "Hang Mike Pence," clashing with the police, breaching Capitol doors and windows to thwart presidential election certification in 2020, is indeed, unique. Despite the Republican National Committee (RNC) adhering to their claim that they only refer to peaceful demonstrators supporting Trump's baseless accusations of election fraud - calling the rioters "righteous advocates" - their attempts at washing over white supremacy are a persistent pattern in the United States.
The attempts to downplay the January 6 horrors are well-documented: from righteously blaming left-wing rioters immediately after the uprising, to the ongoing Republican-led House effort to reattribute the day's chaos to mere "tourist visits" and the widespread campaign to portray the rioters as "peaceful patriots." While it's crucial to appreciate these misguided efforts to exonerate the January 6 violence, we should also scrutinize them within the broader context of the right-wing radicalization and official sanctions that increasingly serve as fertile grounds for future political violence.
Attempts to reframe violence as legitimate political discourse have been the buzzword among the right-wing during the Trump era. Trump, both as a candidate and president, often encouraged his supporters to resort to violence. If he mocked spectators being hurled off the back of a pickup truck, he merely recalled how they "look like they were being thrown in," folks just tumbling in, and it's "harsh" - he freed them of any blame. Such statements are often dismissed as Trump's excesses, but they are in fact part of an intricate blend of political rhetoric and political violence.
Trump's comments on Charlottesville and his reflexive defense of some of the event's shadow factions mixed with neonazis and white supremacists form White Power group Unite the Right in 2017 perfectly align with this trend. What's more critical, however, is the tactical correlation between "legitimate political discourse" and political violence.
Organizers of the Unite the Right rally strategically crafted the event, thus demonstrating a clear connection between "legitimate political discourse" and political violence. Their attempts to carry out the rally were thwarted by a court order the day before. As defense attorneys argued in court, organizers gathered tiki torches in preparation for the march through Charlottesville--an act of intimidation and violence that accompanied the rhetoric of freedom of speech after the deadly political violence in Charlottesville.
The RNC’s call for "legitimate political discourse" is yet another attempt to muddle the waters. The party has tried to frame the January 6 investigations as an infringement on free speech, rather than a response to violence, and portray the rioters as protagonists of the culture war, instead of an attack on the Capitol and an attempt to overthrow an election. Shifting the narrative of this historical event from an attack on the Capitol and an attempt to overturn the election to a tale about the persecution of hundreds of patriots who merely voiced their opinions without incurring a destructive culture of chaos-mob attackers, is a classic inversion.
In this narrative, the mob becomes the victim, and the victim becomes the mob.
The right simplified the dramatic events of 2020 protests against racial injustice in a similar manner. While there was initial conservative support for these protests, it has almost entirely vanished now. Instead, violent protests are now depicted as supporters of racial injustice, while peaceful protesters are characterized as insurgents. This comparison was frequently referenced in right-wing talk radio and podcasts last year.
But here's a crucial missing piece from these discussions: the reaction to these protests.
The brutal and lawless law enforcement violence against peaceful protesters in 2020 was not an isolated incident; it was pervasive, from George Floyd's murder to confrontations with peaceful protesters nationwide.
In the distorted narrative of the right, reversing the roles of the mob and the victim stems from political desperation. Their efforts to rehabilitate and rationalize right-wing violence often create a hostile environment that serves only to further encourage it. Given that a mob was able to storm the Capitol while hunting down congressmen to subvert the election and that this attempt was either supported or encouraged by Trump and his administration through their own antidemocratic efforts, why should political demonstrators and their martyrs swear off violence in the future? Why would they perceive mob attacks as anything other than a legitimate form of political discourse?
In conclusion, the Republican National Committee's attempts to justify the January 6 events as a legitimate political discourse create a climate that can potentially escalate the stage for further right-wing mob violence. By minimizing, rationalizing, and denying the violence, they contribute to a climate that encourages such behavior, opens the door for impunity, and bolsters the influence of extremist leaders.
Special thanks to Substack for insightful enrichments
Sources: [1] National Review [2] Washington Post [3] Wikipedia [4] CNN [5] AP News [6] Politico [7] Salon [8] Vox [9] Charlottesville 2.0
