After the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, you heard variations of this line: 鈥淭his is not who we are.鈥� On Inauguration Day, you heard variations of this line: 鈥淣ow is a time for unity.鈥�
Not so fast, say 乐播传媒 social scientists who spoke on Martin Luther King Jr. Day at 乐播传媒.
The idea that 鈥渢his isn’t who we are,鈥� that 鈥渨hite supremacy and democracy have not been in fundamental contest for at least the past 150 years, is just a dangerous misconception,鈥� said Assistant Professor of History Andrew Baker.
A call for unity is equally problematic, said Professor of Politics Stephen Engel. A functioning democracy depends in large part on the political opposition remaining loyal to the constitution and the rule of law. The events of Jan. 6 clearly violated that idea. But recovering a critical component of democracy, however, does not 鈥渃ome through any blind call for unity,” he said. “It doesn’t come by sweeping aside the deliberate violation of constitutional principles.鈥�
Joining Baker and Engel were Professor Emerita of Politics Leslie Hill, Associate Professor of Politics John Baughman, and budding scholar Allen Sumrall 鈥�16, who is working on his Ph.D. in government and completing law school, both at the University of Texas at Austin. The session was moderated by Noelle Chaddock, vice president for equity and inclusion.
One flag tells the real story
Of the various banners and flags toted by the insurrectionists, such as Trump banners, the current American flag, the Confederate flag, and the 1776 flag, Andrew Baker says to pay attention to the latter two, especially the Confederate flag.
The 1776 flag 鈥渋s essentially how the insurrectionists saw themselves, as American patriots.鈥� But don鈥檛 be fooled: 鈥淔ascist or proto-fascist movements often invoke history to justify what they’re doing in the present.鈥�
For Baker, a historian of 19th-century U.S., 鈥渢he flag that really stood out to me was the one that said the quiet part out loud鈥�: the Confederate flag.
Looking at the Civil War and its problematic aftermatch, Reconstruction, not the American Revolution, is perhaps 鈥渢he more accurate way of imagining鈥� what鈥檚 happening now.
Reconstruction 鈥渨as a contest between white supremacy and democracy.鈥� Following emancipation, Black people were given the right to vote, which triggered a 鈥渧iolent white supremacist backlash,鈥� including the emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, 鈥渁 paramilitary terrorist organization designed entirely to subvert democracy and to reorient Southern politics along the lines of white supremacy.鈥�
In subsequent years, the South gained 鈥渉ome rule,鈥� says Baker, and Jim Crow was born and thrived until the 鈥減artial success鈥� of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 鈥�60s.
This is who we are
As she watched the insurrection unfold on TV, Leslie Hill was also struck by the 鈥渢his is not who we are鈥� narrative coming from members of Congress and others.
鈥淚 kept thinking to myself, 鈥淲ait a minute. What are you talking about? If one thinks about the history of this country and the symbolism of racism, of Nazi ideology, that was on the signs and the symbols used by folks who were breaking in, I thought to myself, 鈥榊es, indeed. This is who we are.鈥欌��
The call to 鈥渕ove on鈥� does a 鈥渢remendous disservice, because the responses to this riotous, violent white supremacist mob is indeed characteristic of who we are, and just how central race and white supremacy specifically had been to U.S. politics.鈥�
Indeed, 鈥淎merica’s original sin 鈥� the expropriation of Indian and Mexican lands, the exploitation of African labor, the uses of and undervaluation of Chinese labor and immigrant labor 鈥� has been an ongoing, consistent part of our country’s history. Trump鈥檚 speech to marchers on Jan. 6, to 鈥榯ake back our country,鈥� advances the kind of myths that enabled America’s original sin and its legacy.鈥�
People misunderstand impeachment
Many people think that 鈥測ou can’t impeach someone unless they’ve broken a law or done something indictable,鈥� Sumrall explained.
But that鈥檚 not accurate.
In his published research, Sumrall has found that people began thinking of impeachment as a legal process in the early 1800s with the nation鈥檚 second and third impeachments, involving judges.
Rather than a legal process, impeachment is a tool that Congress has 鈥渢o remove officials who are abusing their office. It鈥檚 a punishment,鈥� he said, and is needed to assure balance of power among branches.
Alexander Hamilton summed up impeachment 鈥減retty well,鈥� said Sumrall, in Federalist 65, saying that impeachable offenses 鈥渁re of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.鈥�
In this sense, 鈥減olitical鈥� doesn鈥檛 mean ideological or partisan but 鈥渢he integrity of the political system,鈥� said Sumrall, who is pursuing both a law degree and a Ph.D., specializing in public law and American politics.
鈥淭rump’s conduct over the last four years, frankly, but particularly most egregiously last week, really fits this definition to a T,鈥� he said.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a classic, paradigmatic case for impeachment: inciting a violent insurrection on the steps of the Capitol with the hopes of that members of Congress will be taken prisoners so they cannot certify the results of a legitimate democratic election, and then failing to do anything about it while it plays out on live TV is exactly what impeachment was designed for.鈥�
The media and others are advancing individualism at the expense of community
In making sense of the insurrection, Stephen Engel quoted feminist media studies scholar Marian Meyers, who wrote that mainstream media, such as TV, film, and other forms of cultural representation, have effectively sold an 鈥渁genda and ideology that supplants as societal goals the notions of democracy, equality, the common good, and community with neoliberalism, freedom, individualism, and choice.鈥�
Engel says that those latter ideas and values have been readily 鈥減icked up and articulated in legal academia and legal movements, particularly the conservative legal movement, as well as on the Supreme Court, particularly by Trump’s three appointees, who were favorites of the Federalist Society.鈥�
With that reframing ongoing, 鈥渋t鈥檚 hardly surprising that a year into a global pandemic, an act of public responsibility and community health such as wearing a face mask can be perversely warped into a violation of individual choice.鈥�
And, when citizens come to value individualism over the common good, 鈥渨e should not be surprised to see a political mob descend on the Capitol with their baseless claims that their freedom is disregarded, that their voices are the ones that are silenced, that their choices are the ones that are disrespected and it’s their individual rights that are not upheld 鈥� all evidence, of course, to the contrary.鈥�
Impeachment is preferable to the 25th Amendment
Engel said it鈥檚 perhaps better that Trump was impeached, rather than removed from office through the 25th Amendment.
Just maybe, Congress is willing to 鈥渞eassert its co-equality after ceding so much responsibility to the executive branch over the course of the 20th century.鈥�
And, he said, there are sections of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 鈥� which 鈥渕addeningly, like so much of the Constitution,鈥� seems incomplete 鈥� 鈥渢hat permit Congress to 鈥渆ssentially boot out its own members. And this may come into play as we investigate whether there are members that aided and abetted the mob.鈥�
But that 鈥減ower will surely be rebuffed by another part of the Constitution by members鈥� claims that they’re protected by the long shadow cast by the speech and debate clause.鈥�
The Constitution as 鈥減archment鈥�
The Constitution is 鈥減archment,鈥� said Engel, in that 鈥渢here’s nothing within it that compels its pronouncements to be observed.鈥� Enforcing the Constitution is 鈥渦p to us.鈥�
We are beyond just “moving on”
Like a dysfunctional family that sweeps problems under the carpet, the current calls for unity, such as those heard at the inauguration, will only sow seeds of future trouble.
Though Trump is gone from office, 鈥測ou can’t move on without any reckoning of accountability,鈥� said Engel.
History explains why. During Reconstruction, when the forces of democracy and equality gave in to white supremacy, 鈥渋t created a hundred years of Jim Crow oppression. Democracy needs to be vigorously defended against anti-democrats.鈥�
The Constitution provides the tools for this defense, in the form of expulsion, impeachment, the 14th Amendment, the 25th Amendment, 鈥渢o say nothing of the popular power of election,鈥� Engel added. 鈥淚 think we shouldn’t shy away from learning about and using these tools.鈥�
The danger of pushing the myth of voter fraud is now clear
Though the forces of white supremacy have maintained a steady drumbeat of voter fraud for two decades now, numerous studies by scholars and audits by state and local officials have never found 鈥渁ny evidence of systematic or widespread voter fraud,鈥� said John Baughman.
And yet, this 鈥渄rumbeat built sufficiently to the point that states started adopting these voter ID laws and other restrictions on voting,鈥� he added. 鈥淭hese laws affect citizens disproportionately due to issues of access and the cost of IDs, and, more insidiously, particularly affect Black voters.鈥�
The racist rhetoric around voting 鈥渋nduces changes in election administration that disproportionately affect black voters.鈥� For example, 鈥淏lack voters are more likely to be asked for an ID even in jurisdictions that do not require ID.鈥�
Then, when he was elected in 2016, Trump 鈥渃laimed without evidence that more than more than 3million people had voted illegally.鈥�
When he lost the 2020 election 鈥� 鈥渂y all accounts conducted extraordinarily well under extraordinary circumstances鈥� 鈥� and then 鈥渓ost nearly every court case that was brought regarding the election,鈥� he continued to claim voter fraud.
Baughman has called Trump鈥檚 behavior a 鈥済rift and a con.鈥�
Now, we see that 鈥渋t was a con with grave effects, because allies and supporters echoed and amplified the claims of the stolen election,鈥� Baughman said. When people no longer believe that elections work, 鈥渢hey resort to other methods to hold onto power. That’s when they take up violent insurrection.鈥�
Don鈥檛 expect white supremacy to fade away
Sumrall pointed to research in the 1980s by the scholar Verta Taylor suggesting that social movements 鈥� she was looking at the American women鈥檚 movement 鈥� don鈥檛 come and go.
Instead, they sometimes hibernate. 鈥淭hey go into these abeyance periods where they’re kind of underground,鈥� but continue to exist.
Taylor鈥檚 research has been extended, Sumrall says, 鈥渁nd it’s shown that white nationalist movements have gone through cyclical abeyance periods and multiple iterations from Reconstruction into the 20th century.鈥�
Again, when talking about healing and reaching across the aisle, pretending that white supremacy is a fading danger, 鈥渁ll we’re going to do is sort of postpone the inevitable.鈥�
Exactly, said Baker. 鈥淲hite supremacy historically lashes out in especially violent ways when it’s under threat: Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Movement, and the era of Trump.鈥�
Enough with the 鈥淚 have a dream鈥� speech
Hill and others on MLK Day at 乐播传媒 said that focusing on the dream part of King鈥檚 speech does a disservice to anti-racist efforts.
A more realistic, and perhaps cautionary, speech by King, is what鈥檚 known as his 鈥淏eyond Vietnam鈥� speech, delivered exactly one year before he was assassinated. (Another helpful speech, suggested by Associate Professor of Michael Sargent during another session, is King鈥檚 鈥淟etter from a Birmingham Jail,鈥� for how King lays out a 鈥渇ramework for direct action.鈥�)
In 鈥淏eyond Vietnam,鈥� King highlighted the three forces that, working together, 鈥渢hreatened to usher in the destruction of America: racism, economic exploitation, and militarization,鈥� said Hill.
鈥淭his triple threat was on full display during the insurrection and mob violence at the Capitol and in its aftermath: racist and Nazi insignia; the desperation of people who are feeling economic fragility, not only inside the hall, but certainly outside in the supporters, both in Washington and online; and the militaristic, violent tactics that they used to storm the Capitol, were on display.鈥�
Rather than the 鈥渒nee-jerk鈥� response to the violence in Washington, D.C., in the form of a massive military response, what鈥檚 needed is 鈥渓eadership that is willing to think critically, leadership that is brave enough to think against the grain.鈥�
Leadership is needed 鈥渓ocally so that people come together to protect those Congresspeople who have stood up and said, 鈥業’m going to try to do the right thing.鈥� They need protection because they’re being threatened.鈥�
We need verbs, not nouns
It takes an 鈥渁ctive citizenry to actually make democracy real,鈥� Hill said. 鈥淎nd, I would argue, we need not the noun. We need the verb. We need democracy making. And we each need to see our own responsibility in making democracy.鈥�
Sumrall indicated that scholars of democratization and comparative politics know that in other countries, broad pro-democracy coalitions take action to expressly repudiate authoritarian and white nationalist politics. 鈥淎nd insofar as we’re just talking about healing, we’re not doing that.鈥�
Are we a democracy?
The 乐播传媒 scholars gave the U.S. some tough love when it came to a deceptively simple question: 鈥淎re we a democracy?鈥�
鈥淚f we’re looking at one fundamental tenet of democracy, the peaceful transition of power, we’ve failed on that,鈥� said Baughman. 鈥淣ot just because of the insurrection, but because now the peaceful transition on Wednesday depends on a military occupation of the capital, to be blunt about it.鈥�
Suppose, he said, recent events are an aberration. 鈥淭here’s still another reason why we can’t quite call ourselves a full democracy right now.鈥� A Democracy entails 鈥渟hared rules of the game for the allocation of power,鈥� he added. 鈥淭here’s no agreement on those fundamental rules currently. Until there is wider agreement on those fundamental rules, I don’t think we can call ourselves a real democracy.鈥�
Whether the U.S. is a democracy isn鈥檛 a yes-no answer
Anyway, a binary yes-no discussion of whether the U.S. is or isn鈥檛 a democracy isn鈥檛 鈥渢heoretically robust or empirically correct,鈥� says Sumrall. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a process.鈥�
In fact, said Sumrall, if one takes a very long view, 鈥渢he insurrection might not necessarily represent democratic decay or the death of democracy, but rather the very process of democratization.鈥�
Political progress in American is not linear
The process of democracy is not linear, said Baker, like a graph that shoots upward with 1776 as its starting point, with Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King as key data points in the climb.
The election of Barack Obama fed into that false narrative of linear progress. 鈥淲e imagined that American racism had been resolved. If we had been more attentive to history, we probably would have realized all along that linearity and linear progress is not a way that we should conceptualize American democracy.鈥�
Recognition that the promise of progress can end in failure, 鈥淚 would hope it would lend urgency to this moment beyond Joe Biden becoming president, and all of us sitting back and saying, 鈥榃ow, we dodged the bullet. America is truly in the clear.鈥� I think that would be the biggest possible mistake that we could make, and history is screaming at us that to do so would be potentially disastrous.鈥�
The U.S. might still be having growing pains
The U.S. is a 244-year-old country, but not a very old democracy, suggests Engel. In terms of resembling a democracy, maybe it dates only to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
鈥淲e’re a young democracy in that sense. Those who held power for so long are now reacting to the reality that a robust, multicultural, diverse democracy is going to have to be more open to different folks having different power.鈥�
And, he concluded, 鈥淚 think 鈥榳hat we are鈥� was made manifest in actions like the Jan. 6 insurrection and how we choose to respond to them.”
