Totally agree on the offramp point. There’s a tendency to pounce on the few never-Trump Republicans make loud, critical statements about Trump, since they themselves have opened themselves up to criticism. The criticism is valid, and some have themselves reflected on what responsibility they bear for Trump (thinking of Stuart Stevens’ “It Was All a Lie”), but we should really be empowering and encouraging this moderate wing of Romney et al. to retake their party. Oddly, one of the silver linings of this awful week is the license Trump so glaring insane behavior, coupled with electoral defeat, gives to Republicans to get off the Trump train. Really, the kindest thing Democrats can do for Republicans is to continue beating them in swing elections until morale impoves and they decide to rebuild their coalition 😉
> But by far the most common excuse line I’m hearing from the Right is “what about BLM?”
It's an excuse line, but I don't think it's one that can be taken as a good-faith argument.
Broadly speaking, the system reacted strongly against BLM protestors. Police did mobilize, and federal law enforcement also was sent in -- sometimes even over the objections of local authorities. The contrast with the Capitol rioters was obvious, where the (initial) security response was much weaker.
Democrats can make an argument that the system was wrong in both cases, treating BLM too harshly and the Capitol rioters too leniently.
However, the "what about BLM" counter-argument is _not_ a free-standing argument in its own right; it does not make a positive claim about how the Capitol rioters should be treated. Instead, it's a meta-argument: if Democrats are right about BLM treatment, then the Capitol response was appropriate.
That's weak. For "what about BLM" to be right, its proponents have to be wrong about BLM. It's ultimately an accusation of bad faith on the part of liberals: whataboutism in its purest form. I don't think that treating it seriously as a meritorious argument will do any good, since it's an argument about the character of liberals and not really an argument about BLM/security responses.
In the longer view, if "what about BLM" does become the predominant Republican defense, I don't think that bodes well for rapid de-escalation of political violence. That sort of cover (which I suppose would be matched with "what about the Capitol" on the far left) normalizes a simmering, low-grade violent background.
As I am one of the people screenshotted on the BLM issue I would like to clarify that I ALSO think the Capitol rioters are bad and deserve harsh punishment. This was in reply to a post saying that for unity Republicans need to mea culpa on any encouragment they gave to these people. Against fair enough.
But I am still pissed off about how rioters got a pass all summer, and unity requires all sides who have supported violence and disorder diavow that. Otherwise it continues to be "riots are only wrong when the right does them, the left can burn cities down that's fine" and that is not a unity platform imo.
- Much of what's being discussed now feels acute, especially the punishment. I think there's need for democratic structural reform - now more than ever. I think HR1 is good start, but it only goes as far as it benefits the democratic party, IMO. To that extent, I think the best efforts would be made by grassroots reform on the state and local level, especially by young people
- Noah, do you plan on doing any articles on how different democratic reforms (rank choice voting, Hare-Niemeyer method, etc.)? To my mind, the German algorithm for representation is the most preferable, but I could be convinced otherwise.
- Matt Yglesias, along with many others, has many times pointed out just how old member of democratic party membership have become. IMO, this is an electoral vulnerability for 2022, which will inevitably be exploited by somebody.
I think you're overstating the differences. I strongly disapprove of both the Capitol riots and the BLM riots, but to use your phrasing, the Capitol protesters were protesting election fraud. Even if you disagree about how big a problem that is (as do I), you can agree that it's a bad thing.
The Trump protests were also overwhelmingly peaceful. Only very a small percentage of those present at the rally participated in the invasion of the Capitol. Note also that that "93% peaceful" statistic is somewhat misleading; there were over 7,700 protests in their dataset, which means that there were over 500 riots. Just about every major city had riots. There were more BLM riots than individuals involved in the Capitol riot.
Both the election protesters and the BLM protesters were driven into a frenzy by gross misrepresentation of the facts. Most participants in both protests were reasonably well-behaved. A small percentage of each behaved utterly reprehensibly. The similarities are far more similar than either side would like to admit
In response to your point #1, the participants in the protests believed that democracy had been subverted. I know some true believers, who read the affidavits of the Georgia Poll watchers (which I admit are troubling, and trouble me still because they were dismissed due to standing, not because they were untrue!). They believe the election was stolen, and are protesting that, not advocating fascism, but defending democracy.
I say this because it may be useful to understand what they're actually thinking--you would understand them better if they were from Hong Kong, for instance. (Even if they're mistaken about it).
Now, I'm NOT saying the riots are worse. But have we all read the first paragraph of the George Floyd protest Wikipedia page? Over 2,000 cities, $1-2 billion in damage *in one week,* 25-ish people dead... I don't know how many videos I saw of people being beaten, shot at or run over by cars during that time. I don't think we even know how much damage they actually cost or how many casualties there were total over the next few months. Come on, now...
Noah, can I start by saying that what happened on January 6th is a borderline coup, and should lead to harsh prosecutions. Period, full stop! Even without victims, the symbolism of overtaking the Capitol when is certifying the elections, the riots are more than enough to make that a dangerous precedent.
Yet your dismissal of BLM violence continues to be baffling and dominated by some of the typical left-wing mythologies. For example, you claim that:
"The causes of the two groups were very different. The BLM protesters were mostly protesting police brutality and racism; even if you disagree about how big a problem those are, you can probably agree that police brutality and racism are bad things. Meanwhile, the Trumpist insurgents were and are trying to overthrow the duly elected Congress of the United States of America"
If we judge the intent of both groups, they couldn't be more important. One is claiming that democratic rule in America has been subverted and elections don't matter anymore. The other claims that America is an Apartheid-light regime, where minorities are oppressed and shot on the street. If we judge the intent, they couldn't be more justified?
The problem? They are both ridiculous fantasies, born out of internet forums and fringe social science departments. American elections are an example for the rest of the world. And in terms of social issues, the US is way in front of every other country as well, to the point that people walk on eggshells when confronting them, afraid of offending anyone. Europe might have the safety net that American progressives dream of, but I can guarantee you that it comes nowhere close to matching the American ability to integrate minorities. Let's not even talk about Asia on social issues.
So yes, the 1/6 rioters were wrong not because of the principle they were trying to defend, but because that principle was never threatened to begin with. Same as BLM.
You also claim that:
"The Floyd protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. A few anarchists showed up and burned stuff. Some looters showed up and opportunistically looted. Portland and Seattle were the two notable exceptions, where violent protests were the norm. Elsewhere, it was only the sheer scale of the protests — tens of millions of participants in hundreds of cities — that ensured that a tiny violent fringe would exist. But BLM is an overwhelmingly peaceful movement."
Now, I concede that quantifying these statements is always difficult. Yet, it doesn't seem to me that the BLM movement is as peaceful as you claim. In fact, there is - again, based on my impressions which others might disagree with - a mix of the BLM with Marxists/tankies/anti-capitalists that were more than willing to talk violence "against the system", even if not always act up on it.
It is also true, and I think this can be more of an objective observation, that there were much more reputable publications willing to defend the summer violence than there were for the January riots. Articles such as "In Defense of Looting" were widely distributed during the summer to provide a moral justification, in a way that did not occur this month.
It seems to me like the left is much more willing to provide a veneer of moral justification for violence than the right does, at least in public.
Your other claim is based on a simple statistical average depending on the data you have chosen. But if we were to consider all the pro-Trump/anti-BLM rallies that have occurred until now, this was actually the first time that people were shot or properties were attacked. If we consider all the rallies, I am not sure the average BLM protest looks that much more peaceful.
I'd like to conclude by stating again that what occurred on 1/6 is incredibly dangerous. It's a precedent that needs to be swiftly dealt with. I also agree that its symbolism is much more dangerous than anything BLM ever did.
Yet, legitimizing violence as a political tool is dangerous. Once the cat is out of the bag, the number of groups that will look at it as a possible avenue will only increase, regardless of the cause.
These events can and should make people reflect on taking this path in a country that has a remarkable track record of dealing with issues through formal institutions. I know I have changed my mind!
When I first saw that subtitle I thought you meant that this weekend would be a killing time. Definitely not a just killing time, perhaps even injustice of Biblical proportions.
My fear is that, come 2024, the people who foresee a viable third party led by Trump will be proved wrong. There may indeed be three parties, but if so, the third will be the one now led by Mitch McConnell.
I mostly agree with what you wrote but this is just confirmation bias run amock: "The Trumpist insurrection, on the other hand, is explicitly pro-violence. 5 people were killed on 1/6 in an action involving only a thousand Trumpists; "...these were mostly what the press calls "“medical emergencies" basically old people who died of the stress of the incident. It was really just one Trump supporter who died, killed by a Capital police officer. On the other hand, there were more cops who died related to BLM activities than this. Just google Patrick Underwood, David Dorn, Max Brewer...and maybe even the Compton cop shootings if you want to be as lose as you are here.
Do rank and file troops, or even officers, care about "military spending", or do they care about military spending _on soldiers and officers_? There are a lot of dollars in the defense budget for stuff like the missile defense program, or developing new tactical nukes, or whatever else. It seems like you can pretty easily push for a bill to slash some of that stuff and then take like 20% of the money, and spend it on salary hikes for the rank and file (who really are paid pretty terribly), or improving housing and food on bases, or whatever else.
Best case scenario for all of this is America collectively has a crazy uncle, 1/4 to 1/3 of the electorate, who are institutionally just never really permitted to exercise any real authority. That sounds untenable, especially when that faction has so many firearms, but right now it seems hopelessly unlikely with social media and Fox News that these people will ever take an off-ramp. So it's the least bad option, to me.
Totally agree on the offramp point. There’s a tendency to pounce on the few never-Trump Republicans make loud, critical statements about Trump, since they themselves have opened themselves up to criticism. The criticism is valid, and some have themselves reflected on what responsibility they bear for Trump (thinking of Stuart Stevens’ “It Was All a Lie”), but we should really be empowering and encouraging this moderate wing of Romney et al. to retake their party. Oddly, one of the silver linings of this awful week is the license Trump so glaring insane behavior, coupled with electoral defeat, gives to Republicans to get off the Trump train. Really, the kindest thing Democrats can do for Republicans is to continue beating them in swing elections until morale impoves and they decide to rebuild their coalition 😉
> But by far the most common excuse line I’m hearing from the Right is “what about BLM?”
It's an excuse line, but I don't think it's one that can be taken as a good-faith argument.
Broadly speaking, the system reacted strongly against BLM protestors. Police did mobilize, and federal law enforcement also was sent in -- sometimes even over the objections of local authorities. The contrast with the Capitol rioters was obvious, where the (initial) security response was much weaker.
Democrats can make an argument that the system was wrong in both cases, treating BLM too harshly and the Capitol rioters too leniently.
However, the "what about BLM" counter-argument is _not_ a free-standing argument in its own right; it does not make a positive claim about how the Capitol rioters should be treated. Instead, it's a meta-argument: if Democrats are right about BLM treatment, then the Capitol response was appropriate.
That's weak. For "what about BLM" to be right, its proponents have to be wrong about BLM. It's ultimately an accusation of bad faith on the part of liberals: whataboutism in its purest form. I don't think that treating it seriously as a meritorious argument will do any good, since it's an argument about the character of liberals and not really an argument about BLM/security responses.
In the longer view, if "what about BLM" does become the predominant Republican defense, I don't think that bodes well for rapid de-escalation of political violence. That sort of cover (which I suppose would be matched with "what about the Capitol" on the far left) normalizes a simmering, low-grade violent background.
As I am one of the people screenshotted on the BLM issue I would like to clarify that I ALSO think the Capitol rioters are bad and deserve harsh punishment. This was in reply to a post saying that for unity Republicans need to mea culpa on any encouragment they gave to these people. Against fair enough.
But I am still pissed off about how rioters got a pass all summer, and unity requires all sides who have supported violence and disorder diavow that. Otherwise it continues to be "riots are only wrong when the right does them, the left can burn cities down that's fine" and that is not a unity platform imo.
Thanks once again for the great post! What do you think we can do as U.S. citizens to stop Trumpism?
Three things:
- Much of what's being discussed now feels acute, especially the punishment. I think there's need for democratic structural reform - now more than ever. I think HR1 is good start, but it only goes as far as it benefits the democratic party, IMO. To that extent, I think the best efforts would be made by grassroots reform on the state and local level, especially by young people
- Noah, do you plan on doing any articles on how different democratic reforms (rank choice voting, Hare-Niemeyer method, etc.)? To my mind, the German algorithm for representation is the most preferable, but I could be convinced otherwise.
- Matt Yglesias, along with many others, has many times pointed out just how old member of democratic party membership have become. IMO, this is an electoral vulnerability for 2022, which will inevitably be exploited by somebody.
I think you're overstating the differences. I strongly disapprove of both the Capitol riots and the BLM riots, but to use your phrasing, the Capitol protesters were protesting election fraud. Even if you disagree about how big a problem that is (as do I), you can agree that it's a bad thing.
The Trump protests were also overwhelmingly peaceful. Only very a small percentage of those present at the rally participated in the invasion of the Capitol. Note also that that "93% peaceful" statistic is somewhat misleading; there were over 7,700 protests in their dataset, which means that there were over 500 riots. Just about every major city had riots. There were more BLM riots than individuals involved in the Capitol riot.
Both the election protesters and the BLM protesters were driven into a frenzy by gross misrepresentation of the facts. Most participants in both protests were reasonably well-behaved. A small percentage of each behaved utterly reprehensibly. The similarities are far more similar than either side would like to admit
In response to your point #1, the participants in the protests believed that democracy had been subverted. I know some true believers, who read the affidavits of the Georgia Poll watchers (which I admit are troubling, and trouble me still because they were dismissed due to standing, not because they were untrue!). They believe the election was stolen, and are protesting that, not advocating fascism, but defending democracy.
I say this because it may be useful to understand what they're actually thinking--you would understand them better if they were from Hong Kong, for instance. (Even if they're mistaken about it).
Now, I'm NOT saying the riots are worse. But have we all read the first paragraph of the George Floyd protest Wikipedia page? Over 2,000 cities, $1-2 billion in damage *in one week,* 25-ish people dead... I don't know how many videos I saw of people being beaten, shot at or run over by cars during that time. I don't think we even know how much damage they actually cost or how many casualties there were total over the next few months. Come on, now...
Noah, can I start by saying that what happened on January 6th is a borderline coup, and should lead to harsh prosecutions. Period, full stop! Even without victims, the symbolism of overtaking the Capitol when is certifying the elections, the riots are more than enough to make that a dangerous precedent.
Yet your dismissal of BLM violence continues to be baffling and dominated by some of the typical left-wing mythologies. For example, you claim that:
"The causes of the two groups were very different. The BLM protesters were mostly protesting police brutality and racism; even if you disagree about how big a problem those are, you can probably agree that police brutality and racism are bad things. Meanwhile, the Trumpist insurgents were and are trying to overthrow the duly elected Congress of the United States of America"
If we judge the intent of both groups, they couldn't be more important. One is claiming that democratic rule in America has been subverted and elections don't matter anymore. The other claims that America is an Apartheid-light regime, where minorities are oppressed and shot on the street. If we judge the intent, they couldn't be more justified?
The problem? They are both ridiculous fantasies, born out of internet forums and fringe social science departments. American elections are an example for the rest of the world. And in terms of social issues, the US is way in front of every other country as well, to the point that people walk on eggshells when confronting them, afraid of offending anyone. Europe might have the safety net that American progressives dream of, but I can guarantee you that it comes nowhere close to matching the American ability to integrate minorities. Let's not even talk about Asia on social issues.
So yes, the 1/6 rioters were wrong not because of the principle they were trying to defend, but because that principle was never threatened to begin with. Same as BLM.
You also claim that:
"The Floyd protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. A few anarchists showed up and burned stuff. Some looters showed up and opportunistically looted. Portland and Seattle were the two notable exceptions, where violent protests were the norm. Elsewhere, it was only the sheer scale of the protests — tens of millions of participants in hundreds of cities — that ensured that a tiny violent fringe would exist. But BLM is an overwhelmingly peaceful movement."
Now, I concede that quantifying these statements is always difficult. Yet, it doesn't seem to me that the BLM movement is as peaceful as you claim. In fact, there is - again, based on my impressions which others might disagree with - a mix of the BLM with Marxists/tankies/anti-capitalists that were more than willing to talk violence "against the system", even if not always act up on it.
It is also true, and I think this can be more of an objective observation, that there were much more reputable publications willing to defend the summer violence than there were for the January riots. Articles such as "In Defense of Looting" were widely distributed during the summer to provide a moral justification, in a way that did not occur this month.
It seems to me like the left is much more willing to provide a veneer of moral justification for violence than the right does, at least in public.
Your other claim is based on a simple statistical average depending on the data you have chosen. But if we were to consider all the pro-Trump/anti-BLM rallies that have occurred until now, this was actually the first time that people were shot or properties were attacked. If we consider all the rallies, I am not sure the average BLM protest looks that much more peaceful.
I'd like to conclude by stating again that what occurred on 1/6 is incredibly dangerous. It's a precedent that needs to be swiftly dealt with. I also agree that its symbolism is much more dangerous than anything BLM ever did.
Yet, legitimizing violence as a political tool is dangerous. Once the cat is out of the bag, the number of groups that will look at it as a possible avenue will only increase, regardless of the cause.
These events can and should make people reflect on taking this path in a country that has a remarkable track record of dealing with issues through formal institutions. I know I have changed my mind!
Given that face in the final picture it is hard to believe nobody looked at him and knew he was literally Hitler.
Wow, what a bad take. BLM and Qanon riots both based on equivalent lies that, if true, would justify them.
When I first saw that subtitle I thought you meant that this weekend would be a killing time. Definitely not a just killing time, perhaps even injustice of Biblical proportions.
My fear is that, come 2024, the people who foresee a viable third party led by Trump will be proved wrong. There may indeed be three parties, but if so, the third will be the one now led by Mitch McConnell.
I mostly agree with what you wrote but this is just confirmation bias run amock: "The Trumpist insurrection, on the other hand, is explicitly pro-violence. 5 people were killed on 1/6 in an action involving only a thousand Trumpists; "...these were mostly what the press calls "“medical emergencies" basically old people who died of the stress of the incident. It was really just one Trump supporter who died, killed by a Capital police officer. On the other hand, there were more cops who died related to BLM activities than this. Just google Patrick Underwood, David Dorn, Max Brewer...and maybe even the Compton cop shootings if you want to be as lose as you are here.
Do rank and file troops, or even officers, care about "military spending", or do they care about military spending _on soldiers and officers_? There are a lot of dollars in the defense budget for stuff like the missile defense program, or developing new tactical nukes, or whatever else. It seems like you can pretty easily push for a bill to slash some of that stuff and then take like 20% of the money, and spend it on salary hikes for the rank and file (who really are paid pretty terribly), or improving housing and food on bases, or whatever else.
Why does moldbug write like that?
Best case scenario for all of this is America collectively has a crazy uncle, 1/4 to 1/3 of the electorate, who are institutionally just never really permitted to exercise any real authority. That sounds untenable, especially when that faction has so many firearms, but right now it seems hopelessly unlikely with social media and Fox News that these people will ever take an off-ramp. So it's the least bad option, to me.