|
FOCUS: Don't Move On Just Yet |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50715"><span class="small">Quinta Jurecic, The Atlantic</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 24 January 2021 11:40 |
|
Jurecic writes: "Until the day that a violent mob stormed the Capitol building, it seemed possible that Donald Trump would be able to shuffle into postpresidential life without facing any real consequences."
President Donald Trump. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

Don't Move On Just Yet
By Quinta Jurecic, The Atlantic
24 January 21
Could a truth and reconciliation commission help the country heal?
ntil the day that a violent mob stormed the Capitol building, it seemed possible that Donald Trump would be able to shuffle into postpresidential life without facing any real consequences. President-elect Joe Biden had indicated his anxiety over a potential prosecution of the former president. Commentators muttered about the political divisiveness of pursuing Trump after he left office. Better, perhaps, to look forward, not backward, as President Barack Obama famously said of potential lawbreaking under the Bush administration.
Then, after being egged on by the president on January 6, pro-Trump rioters broke into the Capitol and terrorized staffers and members of Congress. The House of Representatives impeached Trump a second time—setting in motion a process that, if successful, could bar him from seeking the presidency in 2024. According to The New York Times, the overwhelming mood of Democratic politicians and activists lurched toward support for investigations, prosecutions, and other forms of accountability. As law enforcement continued searching for rioters, the very same Republican politicians who had earlier been stoking chaos frantically backpedaled, issuing statements calling for “unity” and “healing.”
The country does deserve unity and healing following the Trump presidency, but they won’t come from ignoring the destruction that has transpired. Accountability—a public reckoning for Trump and those who enabled his abuses—is the way forward. One path is prosecution, which can provide punishment to perpetrators. But another, complementary approach is truth commissions, which center on the voices and experiences of victims.
Imagine a commission convened to investigate family separations and the administration’s policies forcing people seeking asylum in the United States to wait in dangerous, squalid conditions in Mexico. This investigation could seek not only to hear testimony from the victims, but also to understand how the recent history of American immigration law and policy enabled these horrors. The value of a truth commission, in part, would be in establishing a common public understanding of the Trump administration and the damage it caused, without which the nation will not be able to move in a new direction. Other potential subjects for such a commission include the administration’s embrace of lies about the integrity of American elections, leading to the attack on the Capitol, and its catastrophic mishandling of the pandemic.
Truth commissions are particularly well suited to addressing societies divided not merely by political differences but by wholly different understandings of history, as ours is. They gained prominence in the latter half of the 20th century as a means by which countries emerging from periods of violence or political upheaval could come to grips with past abuses. Commissions typically seek to provide victims of wrongdoing with an opportunity to speak and be heard, and to find the public respect and recognition they have been denied. As Kelebogile Zvobgo, a political scientist who studies truth commissions at William & Mary, told me, the violence in the Capitol showcased exactly the “lack of shared understanding of past and present” that makes a commission necessary.
The most widely used definition of a truth commission comes from the human-rights scholar Priscilla Hayner, a senior mediation adviser for the United Nations. Commissions, Hayner writes in her book Unspeakable Truths, are temporary bodies established by the government to study past abuses, rather than monitor an ongoing crisis. They tend to focus on patterns of abuse over time—long histories of racialized violence, for example—rather than isolated events. “The past is an argument,” writes the Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff, “and the function of truth commissions … is simply to purify the argument, to narrow the range of permissible lies.”
Some scholars contend that, in order to constitute a truth commission, the process must be linked with a political transition: the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, perhaps the most prominent example of such an organization, was formed at the end of apartheid. In recent years, though, some established democracies—such as Canada and several American states—have also begun to make use of commissions in facing the uglier aspects of their pasts. In 2013, Maine created the Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission to study the state’s removal of Wabanaki children from their families beginning in the 1970s. And in 2019, the government of Maryland established a body dedicated to investigating the history of racist lynchings across the state from 1854 to 1933. Arguably, the first—and only—national truth commission in the U.S. was established in 1980, to examine the World War II–era internment of Japanese Americans. More recently, members of Congress have put forward proposals for truth commissions to deal with legacies of racial violence against Black Americans and other people of color, along with policies that forced Native American children to attend boarding schools away from their communities.
Weeks before the election, the historian Jill Lepore argued that the idea of a truth commission after Trump would minimize those earlier, historical wrongs: “Coming to terms with centuries of dispossession, enslavement and racial violence is a very different matter from reckoning with four years of a democratically elected president,” she wrote in The Washington Post. This underestimates the predation of the Trump administration—especially given that the Republican Party has now tossed aside its commitment to democratic elections going forward. But rather than separating Trump’s abuses from “centuries of dispossession,” an American truth commission might be better conceptualized as an investigation beginning with Trump and stretching backward. In many ways, Trump represents something genuinely new and warped, but he is also an extension of the uglier parts of the country’s character. “You’d need to contextualize Trump as part of the through line” of abuses over history, Zvobgo told me.
The most obvious way to establish an independent commission would be through the legislative branch: the federal investigation into Japanese American internment was created by an act of Congress. But that commission had support from both Democrats and Republicans, a notion that seems far-fetched now. Even if Democrats manage to somehow push through a bill along a razor-thin majority—or if a commission were established by other means, perhaps an executive order—a post-Trump investigation pursued along partisan lines could be doomed from the start. This is the irony: The exact conditions that led to and sustained the Trump era—white grievance, a polluted media ecosystem, and political polarization—are the same conditions that will likely prevent a truth commission from succeeding.
These problems are already apparent. Right-wing commentators have compared suggestions for a truth commission to threats of “totalitarianism” and “the guillotine.” It’s all too easy to imagine how Fox News and Newsmax would turn Trump supporters against even the most painstakingly fair commission—and how former administration officials could use this fury as a cover for refusing to testify, denying commissioners the participation they would need from perpetrators in order to succeed. A truth commission may be needed now in America to reestablish what Ignatieff calls “the range of permissible lies” about the country’s history, but how it would work is hard to see, precisely because so many liars have stopped asking for permission.
“I just don’t think the country is ready” for a truth commission, Adam Kochanski, who studies transitional justice at McGill University, told me. In his view, the political divisions are too deep: “A lot of groundwork needs to be laid first in order for a truth-commission process to be successful and for the truth to stick.” Before a national truth commission can be possible, Kochanski told me, work needs to be done around restoring trust in government and “reestablishing truth.”
Even so, “there’s never a ‘good time’ for transitional justice,” Zvobgo argued to me in the aftermath of the riot. “We just need to go for it.” Likewise, when I first spoke with him shortly after the November election, Joshua Inwood told me that a national truth commission is “probably a long shot.” An associate geography professor at Penn State University, where he has studied American truth commissions at the local and regional levels, Inwood found that U.S. commissions tend to do best when they enjoy strong grassroots support—which would be challenging to organize countrywide. When we spoke again after the Capitol riot, he remained cautious about the feasibility of a national truth commission, but felt that such an organization could help Americans “at least begin to have conversations about a shared set of facts and a shared reality.”
If a truth commission does not emerge, other strategies exist for ensuring that wrongdoing is not forgotten. After the Capitol riot, a surge of energy has poured into shunning the Republican politicians who egged on the violence. Commentators have suggested that figures such as Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley be shunned for their role in precipitating the siege of the Capitol, and home-state newspapers are calling on the legislators to resign. The day after the riot, Simon & Schuster announced that it would no longer publish Hawley’s upcoming book.
Social sanctions such as these are powerful in their own right, argues the political theorist Jacob T. Levy. After the 2019 resignation of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen—who was crucial in implementing the family-separation policy—the Niskanen Center, where Levy is a fellow, announced that it would refuse to associate with Nielsen or any organization that gave her an institutional home. Such shunning is “an important fallback when official impunity has been granted,” wrote Levy in the months before the election. His view is that, at a minimum, officials who engage in abuses of power “should not have their time in office counted in their favor by any institution making any decision about conferring status and prestige.”
“It will take serious effort to shape the understanding of the election into ‘Trump was specifically rejected, for good reason that we should remember,’” Levy told me over email. “Without some widespread and visible ongoing rejection of those who served in the Trump administration, I don’t think we get any norm-rebuilding at all, just pious hopes.” A truth commission, he said, could help provide a documentary record to supplement that process, but the work ahead remains the same.
And then, there is the question of prosecutions—a possibility that might have seemed far-fetched before January 6, but now appears somewhat plausible. Biden told reporters in August that prosecuting a former president would be “probably not very … good for democracy.” Yet Trump’s recent dangerous behavior undercuts one of the key arguments against, at a bare minimum, looking into possible criminality on the president’s part, not to mention that of other officials who may have committed crimes. As my colleague Paul Rosenzweig wrote in The Atlantic, “the promise not to prosecute after a term ends is part of the price we pay for the routine peaceful transition of power”—but now that Trump has already broken his side of the bargain, why make that payment?
For this reason, justified investigations of Trump and his associates would help support the Biden administration’s effort to redraw the lines of what is and isn’t acceptable, and recommit the country to the much-battered principle that no one is above the law. And if a case ended up in court, it would set out the truth of Trump’s actions in the judicial record in black and white. This is a different form of justice than that offered by a truth commission, but it is also a form of healing, a way of saying that Trump’s vision of America is not the only way for the country to be.
In the short run, any of these measures could risk making the country’s social and political divisions worse. Republican lawmakers have threatened as much with their arguments that any efforts to hold them accountable for the Capitol riot would be divisive. Yet that may matter less than it seems. Truth commissions are often referred to as “truth and reconciliation commissions,” but, Zvobgo told me, scholars have begun to split truth from peacemaking in recent years. “Truth can be a foundation,” Zvobgo said, “for education, commemoration, trials, reparations”—all worth pursuing in and of themselves, whether or not reconciliation results. Reconciliation that forfeits truth is not a trade worth making in the United States today. No solid foundation can be built from forgetting. The challenge will be to avoid the temptation of polite forgetfulness and insist instead on acknowledging and uncovering what happened under Trump, and who was responsible.

|
|
Surprise: Trump Left Biden With a Vaccine Distribution Plan That's Basically a Xerox Copy of His Bare Ass |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 24 January 2021 09:34 |
|
Levin writes: "Something you probably came to realize over the last four years was that Donald Trump was not a good president."
Joe Biden. (photo: Melina Mar/Getty Images)

Surprise: Trump Left Biden With a Vaccine Distribution Plan That's Basically a Xerox Copy of His Bare Ass
By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
24 January 21
“Got ya, suckuh. I did nothing!”
omething you probably came to realize over the last four years was that Donald Trump was not a good president. In fact some might go so far as to say he was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, a claim that fact-checkers standing by tell us is...100% accurate. Unfortunately, Trump’s badness wasn‘t eradicated the day he left office; instead, its effects will linger like a viral plague, or a ticking time bomb, or a series of booby traps spread around the federal government for God knows how long, which Joe Biden now has to clean up. Starting with: the fact that the Trump administration apparently left its successor with no COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan whatsoever.
CNN reports that within hours of the new president being sworn in on Wednesday, sources revealed that “one of the biggest shocks that the Biden team had to digest during the transition period was what they saw as a complete lack of vaccine distribution strategy” under Trump, despite the fact that multiple drugs had already been approved. “There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch,” a person familiar with the matter told CNN, with another adding that the reaction upon learning they would have to start from “square one” was: “Wow, just further affirmation of complete incompetence.”
Last week, just when it looked like Team Trump couldn’t possibly do a worse job handling the pandemic if it tried—and putting Champ and Major in front of the coronavirus task force would’ve been a better idea—it emerged that despite the Health and Human Services Department announcing that the federal government would start releasing COVID-19 doses that had been held in reserve for second shots, no such reserve existed. Many states are now saying that they’re running out of doses, and thousands of people have had their appointments canceled. (Naturally, the Trump administration blamed the situation on states supposedly having unrealistic expectations for how many doses were on the way.)
Biden has said he wants to get 100 million shots into Americans’ arms within his first 100 days in office, a gargantuan task that obviously would have been made slightly easier had his predecessor spent his last two months in office focused on the deadly virus rather than trying to overturn the results of the election. While Trump was attempting a coup, the U.S. was barreling toward 400,000 COVID-19 deaths, a figure that now stands at 407,000 and counting. Shortly after taking the oath of office, Biden signed an executive order requiring masks on federal property, in addition to reversing Trump’s wildly petty decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization. On Wednesday night White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, “The issue that [the president] wakes up every day focused on is getting the pandemic under control,” which in normal times would go without saying, but given his predecessor’s history of effectively ignoring the crisis from the start except to suggest that people inject bleach into their veins, it apparently had to be said.
On Thursday, Biden is expected to sign another batch of pandemic-related executive orders, including directing companies to ramp up manufacturing of supplies for vaccines, testing, and PPE for health care workers. Speaking to reporters, Jeff Zients, the president’s coronavirus response coordinator, said that the administration expected the situation it was walking into to be bad, but never expected it to be this bad, even considering Trump’s historic level of incompetence. “What we’re inheriting is so much worse than we could have imagined,” Zients said.
Meanwhile, the gang at Fox News is incensed that Biden hasn’t thanked “Donald Trump and the Trump administration for what they did.”

|
|
|
Capitol Attack Was Culmination of Generations of Far-Right Extremism |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29592"><span class="small">Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 24 January 2021 09:33 |
|
Devereaux writes: "While all presidential transitions are historic, pervasive fear of political violence and a militarized government response to those concerns set this transfer of power apart."
Security measures in place around the Capitol before inauguration of Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 18, 2021. (photo: Ron Haviv/VII/Redux/The Intercept)

Capitol Attack Was Culmination of Generations of Far-Right Extremism
By Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept
24 January 21
But an expanded war on terror would threaten legitimate resistance to state violence.
he flag over the Capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, hung at half-staff Sunday. Set atop a hill overlooking the Susquehanna River, the entrance was guarded by police in riot gear. Lower down, at the street level, intersections were blocked by law enforcement vehicles. On each of the Capitol’s four sides, camouflaged National Guardsmen in masks clutched rifles to their chests. A handful of stocky, middle-aged men with wraparound sunglasses lingered about. Whether they were cops or militia was unclear. If they were trying to keep a low profile, their efforts were falling short.
Police officers on horseback rode down the middle of North 3rd Street, past Sammy’s Authentic Italian Restaurant and Old Town Deli, toward Liberty Street. The horses’ hooves clacked against the pavement. A young couple sat on stoop taking it all in. Between them was their 3-year-old boy, dressed in a winter coat and light-up sneakers. The man was 27, and the woman was 20; both were Black and lifelong residents of the city. They asked that their names not be used in a story. Given that rioters carrying Confederate flags had just laid siege to the nation’s Capitol, leaving five people dead, and that law enforcement in Harrisburg was bracing for similar acts of insurrection, it felt like a reasonable request.
“It’s crazy,” the woman told me, as she looked out at the armed forces occupying her city’s streets. The man agreed: “It’s just shocking that all of this comes after a presidential election.”
Like just about everywhere else in the country, Harrisburg was touched by last summer’s protests against police brutality and killings. The demonstrations cast a new light on the city’s unique history. In the mid-19th century, the area of Harrisburg where the Capitol now sits was known as the Old Eighth Ward: a Black cultural hub and the city’s most diverse area. With the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, it transformed into a hotbed of abolitionist activism, and Harrisburg, in turn, became a vital juncture on the Underground Railroad. Following the Civil War, the government invoked eminent domain and took the land that the ward was built on, wiping away the vibrant multicultural community to make way for the Capitol complex. Last summer, a long-running effort to correct the record and officially recognize the Old Eighth’s existence succeeded, with a monument to the ward unveiled on Juneteenth. The ceremony took place against the backdrop of protests in the city, which to many were the historical extension of abolitionist struggle that the Old Eighth was known for. Though the demonstrations drew a response from local authorities, the man said, it looked nothing like the militarized posture the city was now witnessing.
“We don’t know if this is it, if it’s just getting started, if it’s over,” he said, adding that everyone had seen the footage from Washington, D.C. “People that reside here want to know: Is that going to be a possibility here?”
The question hung over the final days of Donald Trump’s presidency. While all presidential transitions are historic, pervasive fear of political violence and a militarized government response to those concerns set this transfer of power apart. In the wake of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, federal law enforcement warned of armed Trump loyalists descending on all 50 states. In Richmond, Virginia, the feared rallies would coincide with a Second Amendment event that last year drew 20,000 mostly gun-toting demonstrators. But when the day finally came, little happened. Because of the pandemic, organizers had already planned to gather in a caravan of cars, and many local militias backed out all together in the wake of the January 6 siege; at least one militia leader reportedly bowed out because he was a member of the National Guard and he’d been called to Washington, D.C.
In the end, fewer than 200 demonstrators turned up in the streets. Among the most vocal was Mike Dunn, the leader of a Virginia-based crew of Boogaloo Bois whose nicknames included “Ice,” “Goose,” “Zulu,” and “Shadow.” Too young to remember the September 11 attacks or the invasion of Iraq, the Gen Z militia commander had nonetheless absorbed the look of a post-9/11 tactical warrior. Rifle in hand, Dunn spoke with the conviction of a 20-year-old convinced of his own worldview. He made a point of telling reporters that he wasn’t like the members of the Proud Boys circulating through the crowd. The neo-fascist Trump supporters were “boot-licking, statist cucks,” Dunn said. A Proud Boy who was selling T-shirts responded by saying that the Boogaloo Bois — a loose network of individuals and groups broadly devoted to armed confrontation with the state — were nothing but “anarchists.” With a pistol stuffed down the front of his pants and an American flag gaiter wrapped around his face, the Proud Boy, who said he attended the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally in D.C., became visibly agitated when asked why violence seemed to follow his organization wherever it went. Later that day, the man was filmed sexually harassing a journalist; by the evening, his purported identity was circulating online.
The lackluster attendance in Richmond was seen in cities across the country. The armed pro-Trump rallies never materialized. But while the week mercifully concluded without any significant acts of violence, the fact remained that 25,000 troops were deployed to Washington, D.C., with a mission to stave off a right-wing insurgency loyal to the embattled president that included and recruited from current and former law enforcement and members of the military. Fueled by the myth that the election had been stolen, it was a movement that just two weeks earlier executed the first successful mass breach of the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812. Now there was a “green zone,” a callback to the U.S. military’s fortified zone of operations during the occupation of Iraq, in the heart of America’s capital.
Whether all of that militarization and effort, coupled with waves of siege-related arrests across the country, prevented further violence is difficult to say. What is clear is the conditions that led to this historic state of affairs did not evaporate when Joe Biden took office Wednesday morning. Historians and extremism experts who spoke to The Intercept in the run-up to the inauguration situated the Trump years in a longer story of contestation in the U.S. They linked Trump’s border and immigration policies, justified as they were on the purported threat posed by hordes of foreigners, to the right-wing violence that was seen in cities across the country and to decades of war abroad. They pointed to the 1990s, when bloody exchanges between the federal government and the far right culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing, as a potential model for understanding the years ahead. And they tied the Capitol insurrection to last summer’s historic protests against police brutality, warning that the creation of an expanded war on terror in the name of countering domestic terrorism would pose a direct threat to the movement that carried those demonstrations.
“There’s a profound historical change taking place in the United States,” said Yale University historian Greg Grandin. In 2019, Grandin published “The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America,” a sweeping Pulitzer Prize-winning analysis of the historical conditions that gave rise to the Trump years. Grandin argues that from the outset, frontier wars — from the genocidal Indian Wars, to the blood-soaked creation of the U.S.-Mexico border, to the building of a global empire through campaigns of military conquest around the world — provided a “release valve” for the nation’s various internal conflicts. That mechanism, which turns on a notion of “freedom as freedom from restraint,” no longer functions as it once did. Undermined by the transparent hollowness of the Iraq War, the Great Recession, and other factors, the project of channeling the nation’s internal conflicts into messianic campaigns on distant fields of battle has collapsed, according to Grandin, and now the wars are coming home.
“Trump’s whole presidency confirmed that argument, and the fact that it’s wrapping up now with a green zone in Washington, D.C., is pretty amazing,” Grandin said. “Climate change, the disaster of the wars, the economic restructuring of the global economy — all of these things have limited the United States’ ability to channel that kind of extremism outwards.” In the past, Grandin explained, the U.S. has been able to avoid social revolution through political realignments within the two-party system. Economic exploitation of the developing world, wealth extraction, and war “all were part of process in which the U.S. could use foreign policy in order to organize domestic politics.”
“That’s no longer possible,” Grandin said. “We’ll see how Biden handles it.”
For Daryl Johnson, the attack on the U.S. Capitol was shocking but not surprising. The right-wing violence that followed Trump’s ascent to the White House — not just the siege, but the Charlottesville white power riot, the massacre of Mexicans and Mexican Americans at an El Paso Walmart, and the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue, among other incidents — was part of a movement he had been following since he was a teenager.
Johnson was working as a counterintelligence analyst in the U.S. Army when Timothy McVeigh, himself an Army veteran, launched his attack on the federal government in Oklahoma City in 1995. Given his lifelong interest in domestic terrorism, Johnson requested and received a transfer to a detail where he could work on the issue full time. From there, he moved to a similar beat at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Then, in 2004, the newly created Department of Homeland Security came calling.
The Bush administration initially resisted the massive reordering of the national security apparatus — the largest since President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act in 1947, which restructured the Pentagon and established the CIA — but eventually came around to the idea. Signing the legislation that would bring more than 20 agencies together under one roof in November 2002, George W. Bush said, “Because terrorists are targeting America, the front of the new war is here in America.” In an attempt to prevent the kind failures that preceded 9/11, one of the core objectives of Homeland Security was the fusion and dissemination of terrorism-related intelligence. That mission fell to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, or I&A, where Johnson was assigned.
In some ways, Johnson said, the office was hamstrung from the start. The creation of DHS had set off turf battles within the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. The FBI, then led by Robert Mueller, was none too interested in giving up ground as the nation’s premier agency investigating terrorism. The bureau blocked an effort by DHS’s new Immigration and Customs Enforcement office to take part in counterterrorism funding investigations, and when the agency considered using the word “investigation” in its title, Mueller reportedly responded, “Over my dead body.” Despite its high-stakes counterterrorism mandate, I&A to this day has no investigative authority, and the office’s work relies heavily on open source research.
Johnson spent his first year as I&A’s lone analyst tracking domestic terrorism. When he was granted the resources to bring on some full-time colleagues in 2007, he went on a “hiring spree,” adding five new analysts to the domestic terror desk. By 2008, the new team was up running, just in time for the election of Barack Obama. The analysts witnessed an explosion in far-right activity online. Johnson documented the observations in an April 2009 report, which detailed how the election of the first Black president had invigorated the extremist right. The report drew several parallels to conditions in the 1990s, when McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, concluding that a combination of the economic downturn, anxieties over immigration and gun control, and active recruitment of military and law enforcement on the far right were making for a highly combustible situation. The document leaked and all hell broke loose. Republicans howled that Obama was weaponizing DHS against conservatives and veterans. The report was retracted a week after it was published. Johnson was driven out of the department, and his team was gutted.
Problems at I&A have persisted in the years since. In September, the former head of I&A filed a whistleblower complaint accusing the former acting secretary of DHS, Chad Wolf, and his deputy, Ken Cuccinelli, of pressuring the office to downplay intelligence of threats from the far right and emphasize threats from the left in a manner that would be more consistent with White House talking points. Wolf, who was illegitimately serving in his role to begin with, abruptly stepped down from his post following the siege on the Capitol. He exited the position just days before the inauguration, having never provided a briefing on the role homeland security analysis did or did not play in the run-up to the assault.
As the Biden administration takes office, Johnson, who now runs a private security consultancy firm, is once again looking to the 1990s as a potential model for what might come next. The former homeland security analyst expects that the fallout from January 6 will play out a bit like the fallout from the Oklahoma City bombing: Lawmakers will call for a crackdown on right-wing extremist groups and those sympathetic to the movement will make decisions about how serious they really are. “You’re going to have a certain segment of them walking away, being scared off by what happened,” Johnson told me, and there will be a segment who do the opposite. “People that are going to be drawn to this movement over the next four years are going to be more hardcore, true believers who are content on continuing.”
To tip the balance away from further violence, Johnson favors a massive campaign aimed at “discrediting the lies and disinformation that have occurred over this past year, not only regarding the presidential election and the voter fraud and everything, but also the coronavirus.” Republicans, in particular, would need to carry that message. “These people won’t believe the Democrats,” Johnson said. “They believe that they’re evil.”
As for longer-term solutions, Johnson supports ramped-up state and local programs to educate government officials on right-wing extremism, outreach in schools, and better monitoring of extremist content by social media companies. He cautions, however, that actions like the recent purging of the right-wing social media platform Parler can have the opposite of the intended effect. “Yeah, that’s a quick, fast, easy least expensive option, but it may further the problem,” he said. Within law enforcement and the military, Johnson said “there needs to be a paradigm shift” away from treating extremism in the ranks as a First Amendment issue and toward treating it as an operational security and insider threat issue. Officers and service members may have a right to hate, but they are also entrusted with special powers and authorities including the deprivation of life and liberty. “It really calls into question these people’s ability to be objective, to be equitable in enforcing the laws, when they have these extremist beliefs,” Johnson said. “You’ve got to send a message that these types of First Amendment protected speech have consequences.”
Johnson takes no satisfaction in the fact that he and his team’s 2009 analysis was correct. “I was just doing my job, and I was experienced and knowledgeable about what I was talking about,” he said. “I just wish the message would have been taken more seriously 10 years ago, because we would be in a better place today.”
As the sun went down on Trump’s final night in office, a quiet settled on the intersection of East Capitol and 3rd Street in southeast D.C. Passersby paused at the police line that ran from street corner to street corner, snapping photos of the building that two weeks before was overrun by the president’s mob. Joggers and cyclists took advantage of the closed streets. A trio of young guardsmen took a cigarette break in a back alley. A tour bus idled in the road; transportation for the troops. A woman carried pizza to those on duty.
The morning that followed was cold and windy. Trump trudged across the White House lawn and boarded Marine One, taking off at approximately 8:18. a.m., bound for Andrews Air Force Base and on to Florida.
The former president left behind a city under heavy military occupation. Navigating the fortified perimeter encircling the Capitol — manned by thousands of well-armed National Guardsmen, Capitol and Metropolitan Police, and a noticeable number of Border Patrol agents — I made my way to the green zone. Set behind a tall steel fence, the homeland security checkpoint featured rows of tables where Transportation Security Administration agents searched through entrants’ bags. I was asked to leave my gas mask behind but was permitted to hold onto my goggles and KN95 masks. I cleared the checkpoint, passing a uniformed Secret Service agent with a thin blue line patch fixed to his sleeve. Blocks away, journalists were gathering at Black Lives Matter Plaza. The White House and the Washington Monument were visible in the distance. Access to Lafayette Square, where Trump’s forces were infamously deployed against racial justice protesters, was cut off.
The plaza was christened last summer, with the movement’s name painted on the pavement in giant yellow letters. Lingering graffiti on the surrounding buildings bearing the slogans of the summer uprising offered an additional reminder that the change in administrations comes less than a year after the largest civil rights protests in the history of the country.
Robin D.G. Kelley, an American history professor at UCLA, said he’s been thinking a lot about the relationship between the protests and the Capitol riot. The author of several books exploring the history of social movements and race in the United States, Kelley’s forthcoming title, “Black Bodies Swinging: An American Postmortem,” aims to provide a “genealogy of the Black Spring protests of 2020 by way of a deep examination of state-sanctioned racialized violence and a history of resistance.”
In the wake of the siege, Kelley said he’s been particularly focused on the relationship between the police, the military, and conventional notions of radicalization. “I’m really thinking hard about the notion of a thin blue line, and what does it mean when the very forces that many of us were fighting in June are the forces that ended up trying to take the capital?” he told me. Kelley sees the Capitol insurrection not as a backlash so much as an ongoing historical pattern of right-wing violence responding to moments of pressure from the left. “I actually think they’re responses to insurgency,” he said — the insurgency, in this case, being a historic mass movement challenging the power and role of the police in American society.
The Trump administration’s exit from power was without a doubt a positive development, Kelley said. “I do feel relieved,” he said, adding that the past four years were bigger than the president alone. “All the people around Trump, everyone that he brought in, they’re all unhinged,” Kelley said. “They’re all the worst expression of racial, capitalist violence.” At the same time, the historian said the Biden-Harris administration carries its own kind of risks, especially for the movement that was in the streets last summer. Should the Biden administration expand law enforcement authorities in the name of some new war on domestic terrorism, Kelley explained, history tells us to expect to see those authorities eventually used against individuals and organizations who challenge the power of the police.
“Domestic anti-terrorism legislation and executive orders will make it much harder and create even greater dangers for a lot of us doing this work,” Kelley said. “We have to be really, really careful to resist that, and not just resist it over issues of free speech and civil liberties — that’s important — but just resist it for political reasons, because the left is always a victim of this kind of counterterror.” He added: “I’m also terrified, and I say this honestly, that we’re going to basically breathe a sigh of relief and come to the conclusion that their election was the struggle, rather than creating the conditions to continue to struggle.”
When millions of people marched through the streets last summer, often in the face of tear gas and police crackdowns, they were challenging institutions that did not pack up and leave with Trump. Since then, Kelley said, there has been a concerning “demobilization” of organizing around police and state violence. He attributed the slowdown to multiple factors, including a “political calculus” on the part of some activists and organizations heading into the presidential election, and the enormous challenge of organizing in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis. Kelley now worries that the downturn in organizing, coupled with the Biden-Harris victory and the spectacle of right-wing violence at the Capitol, could make that demobilization permanent. “What we end up doing is demobilizing the very anti-fascist movements that many of us were in the streets fighting for this summer,” he said. “And then re-mobilizing it against these mobs by giving the state a pass.”
The challenge in a post-Trump United States is “reminding people that there’s a long history of racism, and it doesn’t come from white men with horns. It comes largely from state policy and a long history, and a deep history, that we have to contest,” Kelley said. Otherwise, he said, “I fear that the summer of 2020 is going to be forgotten.”

|
|
Why I Took Part in the Biden-Harris Inauguration |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53256"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hollywood Reporter</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 23 January 2021 13:22 |
|
Abdul-Jabbar writes: "The last year has been like a horror movie in which a terrified family battles relentless brain-eating zombies all night, but finally emerges victorious into the bright sun of the dawn."
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Dan Winters/NYT)

Why I Took Part in the Biden-Harris Inauguration
By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hollywood Reporter
23 January 21
"I felt honored to be an active part of the relaunching of the ship of state with a real captain at the helm," says the Hollywood Reporter columnist, who helped introduce the new leaders with words first recited by Abraham Lincoln.
he last year has been like a horror movie in which a terrified family battles relentless brain-eating zombies all night, but finally emerges victorious into the bright sun of the dawn. For me, the inauguration of Joe Biden is like that hopeful dawn in which those with brains still intact emerge from the darkness to reclaim our country and everything it stands for.
Being a participant in President Biden’s inauguration ceremony, I felt honored to be an active part of the relaunching of the ship of state with a real sea-worthy captain at the helm (think salty Capt. Lee of Below Deck), not a sea-sick imposter who stole the uniform and bluffed his way into the wheelhouse. My role in the inauguration was simple: I was one of several celebrities who would each read sections of various presidents’ inaugural addresses with the entire compilation presented during the Celebrating America special hosted by Tom Hanks. In 1854, Lincoln spoke of “the monstrous injustice of slavery,” so I couldn’t help but wonder what he might think about a Black man reading his words to the entire nation he so ably defended against insurrectionists.
It’s appropriate that the Biden inauguration takes place in the same week as Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, because Dr. King dared us to dream big by sharing his own dream for a unified and equitable America. Our country has always encouraged dreamers who just want a chance to develop their full potential on an even playing field. Dr. King was optimistic that Americans would continue to strive for a place where everyone had an equal opportunity to follow those dreams. But he was also a realist and knew that even the most well-meaning people sometimes needed a push to do the right thing. I’m hoping the inauguration, with its display of diversity, inclusion and eager hopefulness, will be that inspirational nudge for some skeptics.
For many Americans, the last four years have felt like we were jammed into a tight barrel with a small breathing hole while someone tried to plug up the hole. It was hard to dream, or even encourage others to dream, because the Trump administration worked so hard to suppress the basic rights of so many groups, including women, LGBTQ+, Muslims, Blacks, Latinx and immigrants. Worse, his lies, foot-dragging and incompetence during the pandemic led to 400,000 American deaths, many preventable. Even his economic plan resulted in billionaires (about 200 people) adding $1 trillion to their bloated portfolios while average American incomes languished.
Some are touting the inauguration as a kickstart ceremony to end the divisiveness in America. Even President Biden’s inaugural address emphasized his goal of unifying America. I’m all for that. But in fact, we are already more unified than reported. The so-called “divisiveness” that is chanted at us daily from every media megaphone across the political spectrum is not as wide or as evenly divided as they would have us think. The rioters who attacked the Capitol Building on Jan. 6 didn’t just vandalize property, kill a cop and call for the lynching of the vice president — they created a deep, ideological chasm between themselves and other conservatives who previously had been all lumped together as "Trump supporters." A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 75 percent of Americans think Trump bears some or most responsibility for the riot. Trump will leave office with the lowest approval rating of his presidency: 29 percent. (By contrast, Barack Obama left office with an approval rate of 57 percent.) Another January survey indicated that nearly half of Americans think Trump will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in history.
To me, these numbers show that the country is not divided in half. Only about a third are true believing MAGA puppets who have been used as unwitting tools by billionaire Republicans and ambitious, unscrupulous Republican politicians looking to shove democracy into a meat-grinder if it means squeezing out a couple more cents of profit or power. It works in their favor to make America believe that they have a lot more popular support and therefore political clout than they actually do. This vocal third is easily manipulated by trigger words like "freedom," "socialist," "radical left" — all so vague as to be meaningless. What freedoms do they lack? Is anyone trying to suppress their voting rights? Are they afraid of getting pulled over by cops who might shoot them or choke them to death? Do they have to Anglicize their names to apply for jobs? Are they afraid their children will be torn from them and put in a cage? Nope. They just want to make sure they can strap a gun to their ankle and go maskless to the grocery store.
This group of election deniers who claim Biden didn’t legitimately win don’t care that Trump picked their pockets for $207 million to fight the election, but spent only a $8.8 million. He keeps the rest, suckers. Refuting the election results may be a matter of blind faith to some, but it was just business strategy to Trump and his cronies. Trump-supporting governors, judges and election officials have all said there was no voting fraud. Yet, that loyal Trump Third still howl at the election-fraud moon because no evidence will convince them. They will always be divided from the rest of the country because they don’t understand what the country actually stands for. They just want a despot to tell them what to think and do. Truth is, I don’t want to unify with those who don’t share the goals the country was founded on.
For me, watching and taking part in the Biden inauguration is a return to the Age of Reason, in which decisions are made based on evidence from reliable and expert sources. In which compassion and conscience guide us in our policy-making. In which the cowardly and greedy politicians who have been looting our sacred American ideals for the past four years will be finally seen by the electors for what they are. In which we commit to building an economy that prospers all Americans and not just the already wealthy. In which we foster an education system that isn’t afraid of teaching truth and gives all students an equal opportunity to enrich their lives.
Maybe I’m dreaming too big. But I’m encouraged because a lot of Americans share my dream. Thomas Paine said, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." But he also cautioned, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must … undergo the fatigue of supporting it." After four years of the fatigue of watching America torn apart, I’m eager to shoulder my share so that we all might reap the blessings of freedom.

|
|