The following is the second of a three-part series. In this essay we examine the movement and its motivation of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
In the first part of this series the foundational lie that resulted in a riotous coup attempt was examined. In this second part, the insurrection is explained as a movement, discussing those that took part in it and the economic philosophy to which they adhere. Central to the mob’s motive is the influence of an increasingly strident economic libertarianism.
Most of what has been reported on the January 6th insurrection leaves the impression that the attempt to prevent the certification of the 2020 Presidential Election was primarily the work of various extremist groups – the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters. That misses the mark. It is now necessary to understand that this assault was not merely carried out by certain radical fringe right activists, but accomplished with the help of a group of cross-class actors -- former police officers, lawyers, legislators and small business owners.
The participation of these diverse elements of society is defining. This insurrection was not the reaction of a few rogue elements but a movement’s statement. Because this event was the spear tip of a movement, the perpetrators -- from that actually entered the Capitol Building all the way up to the elected officials that instigated events — must be pressed home without hesitancy, without fear.
Any movement that has acted violently to suppress the legitimate expression of democracy must itself be lawfully suppressed. That is yet another lesson of Munich.
DEFINING THE MOVEMENT
The storming of the Capitol was indicative of something of great concern. It was a dire warning. Writing in the February 2, 2021 edition of The Atlantic, Robert A. Pape and Kevin Ruby noted:
Violence organized and carried out by far-right militant organizations is disturbing, but it at least falls into a category familiar to law enforcement and the general public. However, a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more “normal” Trump supporters—middle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged people without obvious ties to the far right—joined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election.
In The Origins of Totalitarianism, the noted political theorist Hannah Arendt observed:
Totalitarian movements are possible wherever there are masses who for one reason or another have acquired the appetite for political organization. Masses are not held together by consciousness of common interest and they lack the specific class articulateness which is expressed in determined, limited, and obtainable goals.
The first piece explained how this movement as built upon a lie of a stolen election. The lie was then used to interfere in the democratic process of certifying a presidential election. That interference was to be used to install a popularly rejected presidential candidate. That is an attempted coup d'etat. It is for this reason that the instigators of this insurrection must be punished, whether it is through impeachment or other investigations and possible resulting penalties. As we will see in the final segment of this three part series, when those who destroy democracy are appeased instead of brought to justice, the result is often quite disastrous.
Arnedt‘s observation of a movement having “acquired the appetite for political organization” stands out.
WHETTING THE LIBERTARIAN APPETITE
But the toxicity of their shared message has deeper, more academic roots. Much of has roots in economic libertarianism. For forty years Milton Friedman’s mantra that “government is the problem” has been endlessly been repeated by conservative politicians and pundits alike. Before that the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek wrote of his distrust of democratic majorities. Hayek even approved of the usefulness of dictatorships such as Chile’s Pinochet. In the present day there is Hans Hermann Hoppe and his disdain for democracy. And now there is the emergence of Dark Enlightenment libertarianism that calls for civil government to be replaced by a form of corporate rule.
Hoppe’s influence was present at that insurrection. Some rioters came with signage displaying the “Hoppean Snake.” The Intercept’s Christopher Ketchum interpreted the image’s message:
The image typically consists of a coiled serpent sporting the officer’s cap of notorious Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet. In the background fly childlike depictions of helicopters from which stick figures are jettisoned to their death, crying “Aaaahhh” in a barely legible scrawl. In one of its many variants, the snake-as-Pinochet proclaims with a sardonic smirk, “I’m evil for throwing people out of helicopters? False. Commies aren’t people.” It’s unclear why Pinochet is depicted as a snake, though it may be inspired by the recalcitrant snake on the Gadsden flag that warns “Don’t Tread on Me.”
The unspoken motivator that was at play on January 6th was economic libertarianism. It is a philosophy that is hostile to Adam Smith’s core belief in harmonizing private and public interests. It replaces the concept of reasonable self-interest (what is good for both the individual and the community) with unreasonable self-interest (what is good for the individual but harmful to the community). The meaning of liberty becomes perverted to excuse oppression. Bathed in the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and the darkness of Hans Hermann Hoppe, economic libertarianism is devouring American Conservatism. This is how the devaluing of “the other” has come to pass.
We full well know this philosophy’s biggest proponents in Congress. In the Senate, it is Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). In the House, they are familiar names: Jim Jordan (R-OH), Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Matt Gaetz (R-TX). Not only must their possible roles in stoking this uprising be investigated, their philosophy of government and economics must become the subject of closer scrutiny. Its increasing anti-democracy tendencies must be made well known. Its mythology exposed to disinfecting sunlight. The philosophy of the movement must be shown for what it is. Then the movement’s momentum can be stalled.
THE INSURRECTION
The insurrectionist appetite has also been sated and enhanced by succession of demagogue pundits for years spewing their venomous cargo of hate. Escalating portions of political red eat bombarded audiences ranging from those of first Bob Grant and then Rush Limbaugh radio shows to the evening Fox News pundits and finally to the conspiracy theory drenched rantings of Alex Jones and Q-Anon.
All of these message of grievance were ultimately blended into the voice of former president Donald Trump. His not-so-esoteric message was that “others” of less value had “stolen” the election. This too sated the appetite of the insurrectionists. And because they perceived those that voted for President Biden as having less human value their votes were seen as having less value. It didn’t matter if it could not be proven that the current President’s vote count was higher, in their minds those voting of less value were “stealing” the election. This is the unspoken message the Trump battle cry of “stop the steal.”
Those that took part in the January 6, 2021 Capitol Building insurrection believe themselves to be the philosophical heirs to the heroes of the American Revolution. They are not. If the insurrectionists are the equivalents of past examples they more closely resemble Hitler’s 1923 Munich beer hall putsch.
The January 6 2021 Insurrection was nothing less than a power grab. An already agitated mob was whipped into further frenzy not just by then-President Trump but also by a succession of speakers ranging from Donald Trump Jr.’s expletive-deleted rant, to former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (“Let’s have trial by combat”) to Republican House member Mo Brooks (“it was time to start “taking down names and kicking ass”). Once the crowd’s emotions were piqued to the boiling point, they were sent towards the Capitol building with the foulest of intentions.
The overall tone of the speeches was a double-entendre word fest of hostility. While there were no direct instructions given to storm the Capitol Building, neither were there any overtures calling for orderly restraint. A reasonable person could foresee the potential for violence. We know from former Trump Attorney Michael Cohen that the former president communicates through disguised signals, nods and winks. Another tyrant similarly communicated with his followers
This will be explored in the final part and why such instigation must be firmly answered.
Final Part: Appeasement