Was January 6th the worst thing that every happened to America?

 

This is a response to my friend Tim who claims that the events of January 6, 2021 were the worst thing that has ever happened in this country. I believe he used those exact words, but if I am wrong or if he does not believe that now, then I am willing to be corrected. He claimed that I could not make a determination on this point if I had not watched the January 6th hearings.

I want to narrowly argue that while I did not watch any but a few clips of the Jan. 6th hearings, I can and should still have an opinion about those events and what they say about our country and culture.

My two main points are:

• I did not think the hearings would inform me of anything substantial that I did not know before, and therefore would not change my mind.
• The people primarily responsible for producing the hearings (Dem. House leadership) are hypocrites who have, are, and will encourage the breaking of the law for their own political gain in much if not exactly the same way that Donald Trump has.

Now I want to expand on these two points individually.

First, that the hearings would not inform me of anything new that I did not already know and believe.

• I had read and listened to a number of details about what happened on Jan. 6th before the hearings and so I am not uninformed about many of the details.
• Based on that here are some of the things I believe.
• Most of the people gathered did believe the election was stolen and should be overturned.
• Most of them did not gather with the intent to do anything violent or break any laws. I have read a number of first-hand accounts, and some from people that were just observers and not there for political reasons at all.
• A small group of people did have mal intent and were ready to break laws.
• Trump and many of his advisors also believed that the election was stolen and promoted that view.
  
• Trump and his advisors not only did nothing substantial to stop the crowd from becoming a mob, but certainly encouraged heightened emotions that can turn a crowd into mob.
• People in the mob did illegal and harmful things, and some had the specific intent of trying to change the election results or at least stop them from going forward. By the way, I believed this by Jan 7th if not by the evening of Jan 6.
• Trump is not qualified to be president because he does not have the character to lead, does not really know the boundaries of constitutional law, and frankly does not care about those boundaries. I believed all of these things before the hearings, and believed this about his character before Jan. 6. His actions on Jan. 6 did not really surprise me.
• As an aside, I agreed with many of the actual policies and practices of Trump during his presidency. He governed much more in line with conservative principles than I expected he would. That does not excuse his bad character and behavior otherwise.
• The events of Jan. 6 were not even close to actually overturning the results of the election. While legislators were in some personal danger the system was not. Neither the military, the congress, or the courts were in danger of actually agreeing with the mob on that day. Virtually all of the GOP congress was going to certify the election, up to and including Trump's own VP. Even if there had been an actual organized and planned insurrection that day that "took" the capital and the congress, it would have been put down by the military and the vast majority of people even on the right would have agreed with that.
• Most GOP leaders and conservative leaders immediately condemned the actions of the mob that day and continue to believe it was wrong and that Trump himself was wrong. What they (and I) don't agree with is the idea that the events of Jan. 6th were a unique threat to the system. We believe our system is under threat and crumbling already and that Jan. 6th is a symptom and continuation of the destruction of the system. 
• While it makes me sad that people who agree with me on many conservative principles allowed themselves (and continue to allow themselves) to be turned into a mob it does not surprise me. Many people on the left and now the right are promoting an us versus them mentality that makes it easy to believe the worst of "the other side," and hard to examine your own side.

My second point is that the people primarily responsible for producing the hearings (Dem. House leadership) are hypocrites who have, are, and will encourage the breaking of the law for their own political gain in much if not exactly the same way that Donald Trump has.

• Democratic leadership has encouraged violence and intimidation of political opponents when it suits their political purposes. In very similar ways to Jan 6, they have encouraged crowds to form, that have become mobs, and that turn into riots. This has happened during the BLM riots, with Antifa, in the Supreme Court building, at other federal institutions, and specifically threatening conservative politicians who have been surrounded and attacked in public.
• Furthermore, by other actions, it is clear that the Democratic leadership does not care about the rule of law.
• They are not taking the border crisis seriously. In fact, they seem so unserious that the very idea of a border, citizenship, and having rules for immigrants seem to not be a thing. Like the idea of an "illegal" immigrant is dismissed because the idea of the rule of law surrounding the border seems to be gone. How does this relate to Jan. 6th? Well, if the very people who want to hold Trump accountable to the law, dismiss the law in cases where it suits them, then their political opponents can rightly suggest that they don't care about the law or the country, but rather they simply care about their own power.
• The democrats fail to hold their own people accountable and even actively seek to shield or dismiss claims of wrongdoing. How for instance is Ilhan Omar still in office? She has any number of illegal acts in her background including specific actions relating to elections. Where is the prosecution of her? 
• Nancy Pelosi has made millions personally off her government connections.
• The Bidens have clearly made money off their political connections and likely were compromised in many ways by those connections. If the rule of law was actually being taking seriously, it is likely Joe Biden could and should be impeached for the personal gain he was getting while VP.
• IMPORTANT!! I am not saying that many in the GOP, especially in the Trump camp are not also guilty of ignoring the rule of law for the purpose of personal and political gain. It is just that people telling me that Trump is the worst thing that has ever happened to the US have a huge log in their eye. I simply cannot take their claims about being concerned about right and wrong or the rule of law seriously while being hit by the plank coming out of their face. 

Some additional thoughts.

• The hearings did not accomplish anything good because I don't think they were intended by the primary producers to actually convince more people to care about justice and the rule of law. I think they were primarily red meat for the 25% of the country that thinks Trump is Hitler. 50% of the country did not care because they no longer trust anyone in power, The other 25% of Trumpians are convinced anything against Trump is a show trial put on by their enemies.
• The difference between Tim and I is how much faith we seem to put in the system. I am ultimately pessimistic about the power of the government to do the right thing because the majority of the people in the government do not have a personal system of morality that guides their lives and certainly not one upon which they can agree with their political opponents. 
• America and/or democracy are not in and of themselves moral goods upon which to build consensus. 
• My challenge for Tim and really for our political leaders in general as well is to articulate a positive vision for the country that is built upon a solid moral foundation that can be expounded for the good of everyone. Right now I do not see here it coming from either side of the spectrum. The Democrats do not have a moral foundation because they do not believe in anything objectively. In fact, they seem to be practical atheists who do not believe in any ideas beyond the natural world, and therefore, the very concept of objectivity in values is off the table. In such a world values/morals can only ever be grounded in some person or group of people. At the bottom, morality becomes the law of the jungle, "might makes right."
• By practical atheist, I mean someone who lives as if there is no God, gods, or supernatural principle to which they are accountable. Many people have a stated belief in some supernatural reality or principles, but if nothing or very little in their lives show that they try to live in accordance with those principles then they are practical atheist.
• Unfortunately, I have to agree with Tim about his judgments of many on the right (and even religious right), because many of them ("us" if it is to be an us vs them situation), are also practical atheists in that in spite of the supposed claims about their belief in a God that has given them their moral standards, they too are quite willing to violate those standards when it suits them. Now I don't think Tim, as a rather hard agnostic (which also leaves him in a place of practical atheism) has a solid moral place from which to judge. This is why like the Jan. 6th committee it is hard to take him seriously when he talks about the "sins" of the other side. Until someone can propose a positive moral vision that I can believe in and hold themselves accountable to it, I cannot take their moralizing about others seriously. 
• Tim does hold to a secular humanism and to a certain extent is consistent with trying to be "good" to people, but the inconsistency comes in that he fails to adequately critique his own positions. He fails to examine the intellectual and moral logs. He wants to stand in the place of the critic but never have to defend a position. Every time we get in these discussions, I try to drive back to foundational principles, and he (and frankly many other secular commentators that I like) want to fall back to some common morality that everyone should just know and accept as if it can adequately ground itself. But some common morality does not and cannot ground itself either in practical or philosophical terms.
• Practically, people will not live according to a commonly felt morality and will not agree to it if there is no consequence and if they are not held to a standard outside themselves. In particular, if we are not responsible to someone or something outside of humankind, then we will simply follow our own longings and get away with whatever we can. The powerful will use whatever means possible to get ahead and control and dominate. Each person at each level will justify themselves to get whatever advantage they can. I believe we do have an inborn sense of right and wrong, but that we also have an inborn selfishness that fights against that. If we teach, by our ideas and lives, that our inborn morality does not actually conform to anything real about our immaterial souls and has no consequence in eternity, then people will learn to dismiss those good impulses and simply follow the selfish impulses. I think we are seeing the fruit of that very thing in the west right now. The culture at large is largely practically atheist and therefore when push comes to shove they end up following selfish desires rather than selfless ones.
• Philosophically, any morality (even secular humanism) as simply a starting axiom cannot stand. This seems to be what someone like Sam Harris and his acolyte, Coleman Hughes, suggest. Morality if it is anything is an obligation to another person or persons. If I as an individual have no future beyond this life, no obligation to a God or gods, and no ultimate purpose or meaning then what does morality mean? Why should I be obligated to anyone else? Why not follow my own desires whether or not it hurts someone else? Why care about anyone? I may have some inborn empathy, but I also have an inborn desire for my own pleasures and power? How should I decide between my desires? What does it matter if I decide to be good according to someone else's standard or be bad? What difference is there between goodness and badness? 
• Here's where the rubber meets the road in this discussion. Why should Donald Trump not simply do what he can to get away with when he can? Why should he care about the feelings of others? He seems to be a narcissist with power, who is able to marshal populist sentiment for his own gain. To what standard should we hold him and why? If the Democratic leadership has the same understanding of morality then "might simply makes right" and it is just a power game. Trump is appealing to his people, many of whom are themselves practical atheists. He wants to use them and they want to use him. Likewise, the democratic leadership uses populist politics to set people up against each other. Those are the bad people (the right-wing terrorists, racists, sexist, homophobes, transphobes) who oppress you, so you have to fight against them so that you can get what you want! It is naked power politics with neither side able to point to a larger moral framework to which both sides should be accountable.
• I am not claiming that some on both sides don't believe in an actual objective moral framework, but that we (both left of center and right of center) moralists are often caught up in the us versus them mentality. In my own Christian denomination, I encounter people on both sides of the political spectrum. Likely people in the same leadership room who voted for Biden, those who voted for Trump, and some who voted for neither. It is incumbent on those who do have a moral framework to present a positive vision of the world, to hold ourselves (and our side) accountable (and be willing to be held accountable), and then to also push back against those who do not present a positive moral vision and demand to know what they are fighting for and against.
• My claim for a positive moral vision is that humanity is accountable to a good God, that we do have an inborn sense of goodness that comes from God, that encourages us to love God and others. I also believe that when we fail to live up to the standards of goodness there will be a consequence after this life. Justice will be done. Therefore, we should teach people to be good according to the standard that people are inherently valuable (rights given by God). We should promote those values of love and build society in such a way as to encourage human flourishing because all humans matter. We should love, not only those people like us but those who are unlike us because if we don't, we will be held accountable in after this life.
• I also believe people are fallen and have selfish desires. Therefore we should expect people to do bad and establish systems to help mitigate against those effects, especially those which come from the accumulation of power for anyone. We should hold ourselves to the same standards that we hold others. The best leaders are those who know these truths and are willing to examine themselves and their side first.
• While these truths are grounded in the Christian understanding of the world, I will work with anyone who basically agrees with me. My only problem with those who want to promote similar values in a secular way is that I think they will not stay grounded.
• Finally, I am quite willing to hear a critique of my position from Tim or anyone else, but remember that it falls on deaf ears if you cannot present a better vision of the world. The Christian vision of the world expects fallenness and does not promise utopia, but I believe it is the best option. If you point out the many failings, I will agree with you, and then claim that it is still the best among all the other bad ways of organizing the world.