ICYMI: Special: THE FASCIST OCCUPATION OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

JPMorgan Chase is halting all political donations from its PAC for six months.
Justin Lane/EPA, via Shutterstock

Big businesses often donate to both political parties and say their support is tied to narrow issues of specific interest to their industries. That practice became increasingly fraught last week, after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and some Republican lawmakers tried to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win in the presidential election.

A flurry of companies have since reviewed political giving via their corporate political action committees:

• Morgan Stanley is suspending all PAC contributions to members of Congress who did not vote to certify the results of the Electoral College, a spokesman said.

• Marriott said it would pause donations from its PAC “to those who voted against certification of the election,” a spokeswoman told DealBook. She did not say how long the break would last or how the hotel chain would decide when to resume donations.

• The chemicals giant Dow said it was suspending all PAC contributions “to any member of Congress who voted to object to the certification of the presidential election.” The suspension will last for one election cycle — two years for representatives and up to six years for senators.

• AT&T, one of the biggest political campaign contributors in the United States, said in a   statement   on Monday that its political action committee had decided to suspend contributions to members of Congress who voted against the certification of Electoral College votes last week.

• Hallmark requested the return of campaign contributions its PAC made to Senators Josh Hawley Missouri and Roger Marshall of Kansas, both of whom voted against certifying the presidential election results. “Hallmark believes the peaceful transition of power is part of the bedrock of our democratic system, and we abhor violence of any kind,” the company said in a statement. “The recent actions of Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall do not reflect our company’s values.”

• Airbnb condemned the violence in Washington,   saying in a statement   that it “will update its framework and withhold support from those who voted against the certification of the presidential election results.”

• The Coca-Cola Company said in a statement that it would also suspend political giving: “These events will long be remembered and will factor into our future contribution decisions.”

Blue Cross Blue Shield, Boston Scientific and Commerce Bancshares are taking a similar, targeted approach to donation freezes. The newsletter   Popular Information is tracking   the responses of these and other companies that donated to lawmakers who challenged the election result.

Some big banks are pausing all political donations — to those who voted to uphold the election as well as to those who sought to overturn it — a tactic that is raising eyebrows. Goldman Sachs   is freezing donations through its PAC and will conduct “a thorough assessment of how people acted during this period,” a spokesman, Jake Siewert, told DealBook. JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup also said they would postpone all campaign contributions.

Facebook will pause all of its contributions to political action committees representing either party for at least the remainder of the first quarter of 2021, the company confirmed in a statement on Monday, citing the need to review its policies. A spokesman for Microsoft confirmed that it would do the same.

Other companies, including Bank of America, FedEx and Wells Fargo, said they would review their corporate contribution strategy.

In other fallout , the P.G.A. of America said it would no longer   hold its signature championship   at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.; the social app Parler, popular among conservatives as an alternative to Twitter,   went dark this morning   after Amazon cut it off from computing services; the payment processor Stripe   banned the Trump campaign   from using its services; YouTube   blocked   Steve Bannon’s podcast channel; and the   debate   continues   over tech giants’ influence over public speech.

To put it in the least incendiary terms: President Trump failed to take the necessary actions when a violent mob attacked and seized the Capitol. He failed while it was full of our elected representatives. He did so while they were doing the most basic, essential democratic work. Whether or not criminal charges would hold, Trump also   primed   his supporters for such an attack.

And while there were some oddballs in cosplay strolling through those halls, there was also very real violence and terror. Dozens of police were injured. Five people are now dead. All of this was   predictable   and, indeed,   predicted . But whatever happened, and whatever the causes, we know one thing with perfect clarity:   The president did not do his job.

In the days since the violent attack, Trump’s authority has eroded still further. Two cabinet members and several White House staffers   have resigned . There   are   reports   that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has “gotten assurances there are safeguards in place in the event President Trump wants to launch a nuclear weapon”; she shouldn’t have needed to do this, and the fact that she did raises all kinds of obvious questions about the relationship between civilian and military power. And now, of course, Trump has officially been banned from   Twitter , “due to the risk of further incitement of violence”; this is another serious (and rightful) affront to his legitimacy, no matter that it was done by a private company.

So, however we look at it, and however much we wish things were otherwise, we are currently in the thick of a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is the set of laws through which we allocate, balance, and transfer power in the United States. Laws and procedures are preferable to inchoate struggle, violence, and insurrection. Right now, however, the Constitution is not fully operative, because the person occupying the most important office in the system, Donald Trump, does not have the authority he needs to execute the duties of the office. The person who was elected to lead the executive has lost so much legitimacy that it is unclear who holds the reins.

H onesty about the fact that we are in a state of extraconstitutional limbo is appropriate and necessary right now, partly because   political truths   are in such short supply, partly because there is no going back and events might require a federal response with clarity about the chain of command, and partly because it helps to shine a light on the duty other leaders have to restore constitutional order.

With a view to achieving greater clarity, here are four things that everyone needs to understand: First, Pence and the other leaders involved here appear to have taken us beyond the strict parameters of the Constitution. Second, the president has, as a matter of fact but not yet of law, lost legitimacy and authority. Third, this is a very precarious situation, but it could be worse. Fourth, our elected representatives have the authority and duty to bring us back within the confines of constitutional order.

On the first point: We need to be honest about the fact that, when our democratic representatives sidestep executive authority like this, even to protect us and the Constitution, they step outside of constitutional bounds and seize some kind of emergency powers. This does not make their actions illegal or unconstitutional, but it does make them extraconstitutional. Perhaps the closest analogue here is when Vice President Dick Cheney appears to have acted decisively to give the shootdown order for the United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. According to the   9/11 Commission Report   (see pages 40-41), confusion about the chain of authority was cleared up within two minutes. By contrast, during last week’s storming of the Capitol, there was no immediate, decisive action by executive branch authorities. And White House Press Secretary’s Kayleigh McEnany’s   tweet   is not   enough   to   clear the air . So, to be as clear as possible: Pence and the other leaders involved here did—and are doing—the right thing, because immediate action was needed on Wednesday (and because Trump more generally poses a grave danger). But they have brought us into an extraconstitutional limbo.

Second, the actions of leaders like Pelosi and Pence demonstrate that the president has, as a matter of fact, lost a good deal of his authority. The issue is not just about whether Trump is capable of fulfilling his duties, or whether he is impeachable. The fact is that on Wednesday, and since Wednesday, Vice President Pence and others have   demonstrated   that they no longer trust him, in a pretty stark and public way.   Others have made the same point more subtly: “[M]any Republican lawmakers are already employing [what] one GOP strategist termed . . . the ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’ strategy, by which lawmakers simply treat VP Mike Pence as president,”  reports  Politico , while,  according to the  Washington Post , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “has told fellow senators and other confidants that he does not plan to speak with Trump again.”  Again, I think that was and is the right thing to do, and I imagine history will not judge them harshly for these actions. But in the days ahead, they don’t get to just dial those choices back, or plausibly pretend this isn’t happening. If Trump wasn’t fit for the job on Wednesday, when it really mattered, then he isn’t going to be better today. The train has left the station.

Third, as things stand, conditions remain awfully ambiguous and precarious. The question of who actually holds power—the most raw power in the world—is   far too unsettled . What is actually going on with the nuclear codes? What will happen if there are more riots and unrest, or more attacks against our core institutions, or on our representatives? Will someone be ready with backup if law enforcement fails? What if there is a natural disaster, or an event abroad that requires a swift response? These are hard questions at the best of times. As we all witnessed on Wednesday, uncertainty in the chain of command significantly increases the potential for chaos and catastrophe.

So, fourth, as both a constitutional and a prudential matter, Trump must be removed from office as quickly as possible—via impeachment and conviction or the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Speaker Pelosi has made clear this is what she   intends . There is no excuse for anyone who does not work to remove him. Pence and other leaders have   already acted   on the premise that the president is “ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office .” Now is the time to formalize these realities so as to settle any constitutional ambiguity for the days that remain before President-elect Biden’s inauguration.

O thers have written   powerfully   about all the good   reasons   why Trump   can and should   be ousted, and   emergency powers invoked . Among other things, he should not have the authority to pardon criminals who participated in the Capitol’s siege (let alone himself). My point here is different: He has already lost a good share of his authority, and so, like it or not, we are in the thick of a constitutional crisis. Our leaders have the tools, and the responsibility, to change that, by starting the impeachment process, or invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and by making plain to the American people, on every platform available, why it is necessary and constitutional to do so. They need to make it clear—through the formal processes available, and for the sake of both the current crisis and the historical record—where executive authority actually resides, and why it is no longer with Trump. Republicans in Congress and conservatives in the media also bear a particular responsibility for explaining, on Fox News and talk radio and everywhere else, why it is better to follow this overtly constitutional course as opposed to the present ambiguous one.

Arguably, our current state of extraconstitutional limbo is not a cause for panic, since it is better to be in a constitutional crisis than to have Donald Trump clearly in charge. But we would be far better off with an unambiguously constitutional formalization of his removal from power. That path has the benefit of affirming the importance of constitutional limits and of reifying our democratic commitments at a moment of awful vulnerability. Impeachment or removal would also align with the dual truths of what we have just witnessed: that Trump has shown himself clearly unable to defend the Constitution (and hence the American people, as a “We the People”), and that, despite the office he holds de jure, he is no longer de facto fully authorized with the powers required to do so.

Regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, swift, lawful, constitutional action is a whole lot better than inaction and constitutional ambiguity. Removing the president via constitutional means is more transparent about the severity of what has transpired. It sets a better example for the future. It makes us safer in the ways that matter most, by protecting the constitutional order rather than coddling Trump’s feelings or cowering before threats of further violence. And if it is executed with some genuine Republican support, it could be the first step towards renewed civic trust.

Any actions that can bring the deeds of those in power into a closer alignment with Americans’ shared constitutional values should be welcomed. Such actions are important pledges of hope towards our shared institutions, and the necessary foundation of a better future. At this time of dreadful sadness and uncertainty, nothing matters more.

Ted S. Warren/Associated Press

One striking aspect of the Capitol Hill putsch was that none of the rioters’ grievances had any basis in reality.

No, the election wasn’t stolen — there is no evidence of significant electoral fraud. No, Democrats aren’t part of a satanic pedophile conspiracy. No, they aren’t radical Marxists — even the party’s progressive wing would be considered only moderately left of center in any other Western democracy.

So all the rage is based on lies. But what’s almost as striking as the fantasies of the rioters is how few leading Republicans have been willing, despite the violence and desecration, to tell the MAGA mob that their conspiracy theories are false.

Bear in mind that Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, and   two-thirds   of his colleagues voted against accepting the Electoral College results even after the riot. (McCarthy then shamelessly   decried   “division,” saying that “we must call on our better angels.”)

Or consider the behavior of leading Republicans who aren’t usually considered extremists. On Sunday Senator Rob Portman   declared   that we need to “restore confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.” Portman isn’t stupid; he has to know that the only reason so many people doubt the election results is that members of his party deliberately fomented that doubt. But he’s still keeping up the pretense.

And the cynicism and cowardice of leading Republicans is, I would argue, the most important cause of the nightmare now enveloping our nation.

Of course we need to understand the motives of our homegrown enemies of democracy. In general, political scientists find — not surprisingly, given America’s history — that   racial antagonism   is the best predictor of willingness to countenance political violence. Anecdotally,   personal frustrations   — often involving social interactions, not “economic anxiety” — also seem to drive many extremists.

But neither racism nor widespread attraction to conspiracy theories is new in our political life. The worldview described in Richard Hofstadter’s classic 1964   essay   “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” is barely distinguishable from QAnon beliefs today.

So there’s only so much to be gained from interviewing red-hatted guys in diners; there have always been people like that. If there are or seem to be more such people than in the past, it probably has less to do with intensified grievances than with outside encouragement.

For the big thing that has changed since Hofstadter wrote is that one of our major political parties has become willing to tolerate and, indeed, feed right-wing political paranoia.

This coddling of the crazies was, at first, almost entirely cynical. When the G.O.P. began moving right in the 1970s its true agenda was mainly economic — what its leaders wanted, above all, were business deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. But the party needed more than plutocracy to win elections, so it began courting working-class whites with what amounted to thinly disguised   racist appeals .

Not incidentally, white supremacy has always been sustained in large part through voter suppression. So it shouldn’t be surprising to see right-wingers howling about a rigged election — after all, rigging elections is what their side is accustomed to doing. And it’s not clear to what extent they actually believe that this election was rigged, as opposed to being enraged that this time the usual vote-rigging didn’t work.

But it’s not just about race. Since Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P. has been closely tied to the hard-line Christian right. Anyone shocked by the prevalence of insane conspiracy theories in 2020 should look back to “ The New World Order ,” published by Reagan ally Pat Robertson in 1991, which saw America menaced by an international cabal of Jewish bankers, Freemasons and occultists. Or they should check out a 1994 video promoted by Jerry Falwell Sr. called “ The Clinton Chronicles ,” which portrayed Bill Clinton as a drug smuggler and serial killer.

So what has changed since then? For a long time Republican elites imagined that they could exploit racism and conspiracy theorizing while remaining focused on a plutocratic agenda. But with the rise first of the Tea Party, then of Donald Trump, the cynics found that the crazies were actually in control, and that they wanted to destroy democracy, not cut tax rates on capital gains.

And Republican elites have, with few exceptions, accepted their new subservient status.

You might have hoped that a significant number of sane Republican politicians would finally say that enough is enough, and break with their extremist allies. But Trump’s party didn’t balk at his corruption and abuse of power; it stood by him when he refused to accept electoral defeat; and some of its members are responding to a violent attack on Congress by complaining about their loss of   Twitter followers .

And there’s no reason to believe that the atrocities yet to come — for there will be more atrocities — will make a difference. The G.O.P. has reached the culmination of its long journey away from democracy, and it’s hard to see how it can ever be redeemed.

Both dramatic events are not equal either in history or politics. Yet, the reasons they occurred may not be too different—the worldview of one part of the country is in direct opposition to another—and, as they were in Russia, the consequences in America can be long-lasting and profound. 

In Russia, the attempted coup by those who wanted to preserve the Soviet Union in turn sped up the Communist empire’s demise, allowing for democratic changes to take hold. Yet democracy never came—the country failed to establish a functional system of rules, norms, checks, and balances, though free markets were running wild, resulting in a chaotic, and corrupt, transition. Diminishing economic protections and the complete dismissal of the Soviet past—even though people gave up communist ideology, many were not ready to cancel their life experiences—brought   Vladimir Putin   to the fore. His promise of order and national self-respect was welcome, never mind that over the years his government has become more corrupt than ever before and freedoms now are in short supply. Yet, many Russians still resent Gorbachev, wishing the coup against him had succeeded, thus preserving the Soviet Union. Some   75%   now believe the Soviet era was the “greatest time,” which to some offered “stability and confidence.” A lot of it is imagined nostalgia, but Putin’s clever celebration of the past, including victory in World War II or Soviet achievements in space (it’s no accident that Russia’s COVID-19 vaccine is patriotically named after the Sputnik satellite), has a lot of fans.

America’s circumstances—its 200-year-plus history of democracy, constitutional law, and functional institutions—are different, but its divide may not be, and if American leaders mishandle the aftermath like Russia did, then the country could be in for even bigger turmoil down the road. 

Joe Biden   insists   that “the scenes of chaos at the Capitol do not represent who we are” but “a small number of extremists dedicated to lawlessness.” This is a form of American delusion—of those who claim that Trumpism is “not us.” There is a side of American life that has an authoritarian streak, not unlike Putin’s nationalism. It feeds off searching for enemies everywhere and creating conspiracies to cover up its own shortcomings. It accepts torturing prisoners in “black sites” around the world, tolerates racist killings, or approvingly cites Hitler as Congresswoman   Mary Miller   did   at a rally last week. Trump has masterfully stoked resentment within the white population against “the other,” often tweeting statements that look a lot like incitements to violence—long before his mobs stormed the Capitol. By constantly “saying the quiet part out loud,” he has given   millions   of Americans who have white nationalist views a license to act on their most nativist, despotic, and extreme impulses. What’s worse, many Republican politicians condoned this behavior with the Bolshevik thinking that any method putting the party on top will do.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin talk after the failed coup in 1991.
PETER TURNLEY/CORBIS/VCG/GETTY IMAGES.

Every nation has the government it deserves. With America’s self-assigned credo of being a shining city upon a hill, many people in the country—most of them white—tend to think of it as infallible and superior. Trump is this America’s son, although he has taken this idea of U.S. dominance to an entirely new and fictional level, essentially declaring that he is America.

His millions of supporters live in the realm of might and fight that he constructed for them. Refusing to recognize Biden’s victory, they will not be pacified by soothing speeches about America’s “moving on” without holding the guilty to account, and with members of their own party, the GOP, leading the way. 

In 1991, Soviet coup leaders were charged with treason, only to be later lauded as patriots encompassing the attitudes of those who felt marginalized and wronged by sweeping societal changes. America has witnessed a similar process, but unlike paternalistic Russia where guilt depends on the whim of the authorities, it has laws. Trump’s legal effort to overturn the election has been   defeated . The president’s supporters loved his message of “law and order.” By that very logic those who violently rebelled against recent court decisions must accept real-life consequences—prison sentences, job losses, and so on. The shock and disbelief—even embarrassment, the shining city acting like an anarchic autarky—that so many felt witnessing the Capitol riot scenes should pull America back into reality. This is not some bad TV we are watching.

Almost four decades ago, Neil Postman wrote a prophetic book called   Amusing Ourselves to Death,   in which he explained that the American lust for entertainment would become detrimental to its democracy. Trump, with his showman persona, is the result of this long-term downward spiral where politics is not based on policy but on a P.R. product.

Today, entertainment, along with politics, has entered a new phase. From reality television to the Marvel Universe to social media, what occupies most people is more unfiltered and instantaneous than ever. Trump is a master of this political genre—part inspired performer, part mad tormentor: few have used social media to aggressively spread megalomania and misinformation as much as he did.

His neofascist America was able to rise up because people were too busy sharing his “alternative facts” on social media, gradually losing their remaining capacity to distinguish between lived reality and its virtual Hollywoodish shadow.

Biden will have to show everyone that American democracy is worth living anew and for real. But it is the Republicans who need to help him reverse the damage. Every self-respecting, even if Trump-supporting, politician should go to their constituents denouncing unfounded conspiracies, confirming the legitimacy of Biden’s election, and demanding respect for the law.   Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell,   and   Mike Pence   have decried the invasion of Congress, with McConnell describing it as a “failed insurrection.” But wasn’t this insurrection organized by their favorite reality-TV authoritarian, whose every whim they aided and abetted for four years? Now when they begin to reassess their relationship with a leader who has long abandoned decency and decorum, their primary responsibility is to support any effort to remove the MAGA king from office at once. Russia, with its 30 years of blame game for the country’s ills between Gorbachev-grown liberals and Putin hard-liners, is a bad example to follow.