jsburbidge | Sedition, Conspiracy, and Rebellion (Reply)

Apparently about 45% of Republicans do not object to the storming of the Capitol. Although appalling, this is not really new news. 45% of about 48% is approximately the crazification factor of the early 21st Century (actually a little lower). Things have not shifted much.

Although the immediate focus on security up to and through the inauguration in Washington is certainly important (critical), the bigger concern is longer term and more broadly spread.

This has been a worry since at least 2008: that if even a small but significant fraction of the American population refuses to accept the legitimacy of the government, and a proportion of those are inclined actively to resist the government, then the mechanisms of government fail or need to be heavily reworked.

For all that we think of democracy as being about majority rule, it is even more firmly based on the idea of general acceptance throughout the entire population. Without that acceptance, those in power have little option but to exert such a high degree of direct power as to have a negative impact on experienced freedom of choice, or alternatively to withdraw from areas particularly affected by the levels of disaffection (e.g. Stephenson's Ameristan), or both. (This is the basis of the strategy of '60s radicals such as the Weathermen: force the government into ever more repressive behaviours by acts of violence, so that the population would reject the government as a whole for its repression.)

Even now, prosecuting everyone who trespassed on the Capitol or continued to be present after a riot had been declared would overwhelm the courts for many months to come. That means either dropping all but the most serious charges or dispensing with important procedural safeguards.

If every non-urban county seat in the US becomes potentially hostage to a cadre of Trump's base who are ready to express their views using violence, there is a potential massive failure of governance just waiting in the wings.

Secondly, the reaction of those conservative voters who are not so inclined - already visible - is likely to destroy the viability of the Republicans as a national party. (Trump lost; a weaker pseudo-Trump would lose worse; a "moderate Republican" would be rejected by the Trumpists.) Internal fighting will hobble the party in any case.

The Republican Party, since 1980, has not been a beneficial power, but its viability has at least meant that there has been an actual choice at the polls. If it ceases, for a generation, to be viable, then one of the important parts of a representative democratic system with parties goes away: the ability to keep the current ruling party in check with the implicit threat of rejection at the polls. (There are other ways to get this effect. If one eliminates parties altogether and reverts to the Elizabethan model where all choices are local and based on character and reputation (and local alliances) of individuals, that works as well, especially if there is a general acceptance of the importance of unanimity, not merely majority support, in choosing a member, things can also work, though it does not scale easily. It does reflect the wishes of the US founders. It's not going to happen.) And that electoral weakness would further inflame the right.

This has been building for a long time and there is no obvious fix, especially as the underlying factors driving the domestic disaffection continue to be there: the retreat from imperial power, the economic dislocations from the information economy, and the impact of climate change. I'm not sure there's any obvious way out of this, save some extraordinary run of good luck over an extended period of time.