Bad History

Many of the protesters who were engaged in the activities at the Capitol on January 6th see themselves as patriots. Yet, the definition of a "patriot" can be a loaded term. In many respects, yesterday’s marchers want to compare themselves to patriots. However, which patriots are they referring to? Let's focus on those who did damage to property and tried to cease the operation of government. Many fancy themselves like those who protested the British taxes in Boston. If you recall, in the years before the American Revolution, a group, dressed as Native Americans, boarded British ships and threw bales of tea into Boston Harbor (The Boston Tea Party, 1773). The British described these people as a “mob” and considered their deeds acts of vandalism and insurrection. Later, American historians would memorialize them as "patriots". But who were these "Indians" and what were their grievances with the crown? Good American history informs us that they were largely merchants and middle class to wealthy men who owed their British factors. There were not the average poor or working classes. By throwing the tea overboard, these colonial merchants actually gained an economic advantage. 

Using the same point of reference, less than two decades later, Americans marched again. They too saw themselves as "patriots" and they were labeled as a “mob” as they marched against the government in the years shortly after the nation’s formation. These “mobs” also protested taxes on whiskey (the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion) and goods (the 1787 Shay's Rebellion). In support of the federal government, George Washington needed to stop what was largely thought to be insurrections. Twice Washington believed that the nation had to be saved. Good history does not look favorably on these protesters either.  Historians argue that Shay's Rebellion led to the formation of the Constitution, and that the Whiskey Rebellion showed the power of the federal government. Closer examination shows that the wealthy in this case felt that federal controls needed to be placed on the poorer farmers. 

Both stories reveal that class issues, not a sense of patriotism, guided the actions of the government and the protestors. There is a pattern to how white Americans define rightful protest. And there is a pattern to how white authority treats protest against organized government. So, that should inform us of how to consider the events at the Capitol. 

Was the “takeover” at the Capitol an insurrection?  It comes pretty close. Merriam defines an insurrection as: “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.”  Their actions stop short of a "rebellion" solely because everyone was “not armed in opposition to authority.”

Rightful protest requires facts and details. Most of the Capitol protesters were in Washington claiming that President Trump was the victim of a "stolen" election.  This claim lacks evidence. The "stolen" election is an adaption of the "lost cause" of the Civil War.  This stresses the sense of injustice perpetrated against the South. It is ironic that President Trump sees himself as a victim and is asking people to restore him to the presidency similar to those who believe that the Old South of the Confederacy should be restored. However, President Trump has refined this argument as “saving democracy.” On Wednesday morning his followers attended his “Save America Rally” at the Ellipse where he recited his claims about the election being "stolen". 

Like the imagery of the Civil War, for Trump supporters, the election is never over. It is easy for his followers to embrace the Confederate flag because the narrative carries the same levels of personal injustice. Trump’s protesters are continually sold a false narrative. The president and his congressional supporters use history incorrectly because they are self-interested in search of personal gain. Simply put, President Trump is channeling national frustration for his own benefit. Protesters are transferring a sense of grievance and making it their own. But the burdens of one group are not the burdens of another. 

This methodology of attacking someone else is effective in contesting votes in another state rather than your own. A Texas senator, for example, did not cast dispersions on his own state but rather focused on Pennsylvania and Arizona. The protesters were encouraged to follow the same point of reasoning. Laws which are vague to begin with, don't matter in this type of argument. One just needs to find disputed votes.

The election of 1876 has become a favorite of the president and his allies because of the notion of "disputed votes". Yet, when using history as a guide, one must look at all of the details. The disputed votes in the election of 1876 are in three southern states (South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida) that are emerging from the Confederacy. As a result the states create governmental structures with dual sets of electors. Hence, the Compromise of 1876-1877 is not a Congressional agreement to investigate the facts but rather a solution to save the Republican Party. In return for the Hayes presidency, the Republicans end Reconstruction and disenfranchise African American voters. In essence they overturn the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Blacks in the South are effectively prohibited from voting until 1965. Sharecropping replaces enslavement and blacks are returned to forms of landed bondage. For Ted Cruz to offer this election and the formation of a commission, patterned after the failed 1876 one, as a solution is an interesting proposal. (One of his colleagues suggested it was racist)

This 1876 election bears little resemblance to the elections of 2000 (Gore v Bush) or 2020. To propose a 1876 approach in 2020 would have dire consequences. Could one disenfranchise millions of voters claiming that an election was stolen? Logic is missing in this argument. President Trump needed to change the outcome of four to five states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) to win re-election. Numerically, that is not in his favor without eliminating votes. How could this development be explained? He has twice lost the popular vote. His popularity has never surpassed 51% and usually ranged in the mid-40 percent range. The Republicans who were on the ballot with Mr. Trump did not contest their victories or losses to this degree. Why would the voting machines single out one candidate? How could the voting machines in countless states be rigged solely against the president?  Who would have this level of technical ability? Wouldn’t the election have to be examined in every state not just the ones where Mr. Trump lost? History suggests that Mr. Trump was fortunate to win in 2016, but the odds were against him in 2020. 

After four years no one can say that we have made America great again. It’s just the opposite. Through underdeveloped policies and inaction, President Trump has ushered over a series of American tragedies. In every case there has been a loss of life and countless injuries. Under his watch, America’s prestige and pride have been diminished. It is ironic that President Trump sees himself as “saving democracy.” No one has had a greater role in undermining American democracy than this president. He began weakening the democratic process during the 2016 Republican primaries and he has never stopped. Donald Trump was the first person who campaigned to lose. Team Trump developed a mechanism designed to explain why he lost before the it even occurred – the system is rigged! As a result, when won the 2016 election, the President-elect attacked the process, and when he lost the 2020 election, Mr. Trump simply escalated his attacks. 

As always, I do see a level of genius in the Trump schemes. In this case, I do think that the election of 2016 was a political compromise. This deal, however, was not between parties, but rather within a party.  (This deal cost several moderate and conservative Republicans their seats in the House, Senate and cabinet) In return for the presidency, the greater Republican party structure decided to let President Trump do whatever he wanted as long as they could hold onto power. As long as the economy was stable, the stock market rose and there was de-regulation and tax cuts, Mr. Trump could do as he pleased. He avoided impeachment and when he misbehaved people looked the other way. Excuses were made and history was re-written. The Republicans were willing to endorse his conspiracy theories and even embrace his racist tendencies. However, the COVID pandemic did just enough damage to drop his margin of victory. Even in defeat, the party supported the president. They backed the president when he needed to fabricate more narratives to maintain his base. What happened at the rally and the Capitol was a miscalculation not of his power but rather of the resolve of his party. The violence and the symbolism of the event could not be overcome. Without the support of countless politicians, the narratives spun into ‘truths’ are still accepted by millions of his followers but must be denounced to save democracy.  Bad history finally sunk the Trump presidency. All that remains is if good or bad history will be written of the Trump legacy.