Yes, Jan. 6 Was An Insurrection

Republicans just keep denying the ugly truth and changing the subject. In the Wall Street Journal, they play the dictionary game.

 

By Eric Butterfield

January 28, 2022

 

When faced with unspeakable crimes, it is astounding where the mind of the responsible can go in an attempt to deflect blame. Of course, the American public is quite used to it by now, after years of Donald Trump's gas lighting, brazen lies and "alternative facts". But, even now, as more ugly truths come to light about the attack on Jan. 6, 2021, Republicans continue to stick their heads in the sand.

 

The day before the one-year anniversary of that awful day, there was no better example of the Republican deflection game than a Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro.

 

Shapiro complained that in repeatedly calling the attack an insurrection, the media is creating a "false narrative" that can "cause dangerous injustice". The media, Shapiro argued, should consult the dictionary for help. But Shapiro's dictionary must look a lot different than mine, because his argument just doesn't wash.

 

Shapiro, a journalist with the Washington Times and former attorney, claims he reveres the English language and its definitions. But in his attempt to prevent a supposedly false narrative of Jan. 6, he dramatically downplays the real false narrative that led up to the attack. It's just a bit of slippery logic, and a big Trumpian deflection.

 

Only in passing did Shapiro acknowledge that the beliefs of the Capitol's attackers are delusional and dangerous. He barely mentions that this fraud began, and continues to be perpetuated by, former President Trump and his supporters.

 

Shapiro writes, "many of them [the attackers] believed—however erroneously—that the U.S. constitutional system was in jeopardy from voter fraud." He uses this sly bit of motivation explaining to let the attackers off the hook—as if their delusional beliefs disprove their intentions and absolve them of an attempt to defraud the United States. That's just pretzel logic. The attackers acted on a belief in a fraudulent electoral claim that was thrown out of more than 60 courts of law (isn't Shapiro an attorney, after all?). But when these believers in the big lie attacked our constitutional system, they somehow weren't attacking it, but trying to save it. How did they try to save it? By violently attacking it in order to force their extrajudicial will upon the will of the American voters. If that's not an attempt to defraud America, we might need to redefine the dictionary definition of patriot, as well.

 

In the real world, people who aren't gullible enough to believe Trump's big lie understand that attacking a government's Capitol is a serious matter. What's more, they understand that a fraud perpetuated by a President is a tragedy—not proof that the attackers are simple criminals who don't understand what they're doing. That's the definition of a stooge or a patsy – and the implication in both definitions is that they have been duped and led by an ultimately responsible party in power. Guess who that is?

 

According to Shapiro, the media's supposedly false narrative about Jan. 6 is fueling dangerous injustices. But he conveniently avoids the real false narrative at work here: Donald Trump's big, fraudulent lie. The defrauding of political followers to the point that they attacked our Capitol is the true danger here—not a misused dictionary definition. Recent polls show that nearly half of Republican voters still believe that voter fraud caused Donald Trump to lose the past election. Isn't that the real false narrative here?

 

Although Shapiro rightly acknowledges that the crimes committed on Jan. 6 should be prosecuted, saying they don't amount to an insurrection is just a deflection for political gain. He may be correct that no one will be prosecuted for a legal definition of insurrection, but it begs mentioning that of the more than 700 criminal cases filed, almost 190 involve violence, and roughly 40 cases include charges of conspiracy. Considering all that, bothering to argue about a dictionary definition is just a shell game. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil or political authority or against an established government". Clearly, an assault of this magnitude on our Capitol meets this definition.

 

Since it does, Shapiro slyly inserts the synonyms "rebellion" and "revolution" to expand his definition of insurrection. Adding these two definitions to the mix, Shapiro claims Jan. 6 needed to involve an organized force that aimed to replace a political system in order to meet this standard. But he's adding these items because the definition of insurrection does not mention them. He is raising the bar of proof in a fallacious word game of his own making. The definition of insurrection in Webster's unabridged dictionary makes no mention of organizing nor of attempts to replace a system of government. This is a simple piggybacking of synonyms to muddy the waters. Worse yet, this tactic echoes the word-choice tactics of the political correctness movement and the knee-jerk censoriousness of "woke" culture that conservatives supposedly loathe.

 

Shapiro's background is worth a mention here. Previously, he has argued in the Wall Street Journal that President Trump's speech on Jan. 6 did not meet the definition of incitement. That definition of culpability may hold in a court of law. But meeting that standard is a lot different than pursuing a full understanding of the cumulative influence of mass political messaging. Now that the Jan. 6 hearings have chronicled Trump's knowledge of weapons at his rally, and his insistence that more people carrying weapons be let into the rally—by diverting them away from metal detectors—I wonder if Shapiro might adjust his definitions and the focus of culpability.

 

We now live in a world that is saturated with social media and extremist provocateurs who masquerade as truth-tellers. Conspiracy theories are on the rise, such as heinous QAnon conspiracies and "deep state" paranoia that find plenty of fans in the Republican party. Ignoring this widespread breakdown in critical thinking when trying to recast Trump's rally-goers as simple criminals, is just letting the ongoing fraud and its delusions off the hook. The dictionary will save no one from these ugly truths.

 

The Capitol attackers broke through barricades and assaulted police officers in an attempt to stop the counting of electoral votes and impede a free election. The attack was deadly and was in part premeditated—how else to explain the prevalence among the attackers of zip ties, protective helmets and shields, tasers, chemical sprays, guns, et cetera? Are we to simply ignore that more than 20 people were charged with possessing dangerous or deadly weapons during the assault? If all of that is not a premeditated revolt against political authority and our established government, I'm not sure what is.

 

Fear-based political messaging has an effect on its believers. Lies, when believed, have consequences. But Shapiro barely acknowledges that Trump's claim of a rigged election is bogus. Rather than try to explain how years of grotesque lies and an ongoing fraud could lead deluded followers to get violent on Jan. 6, Shapiro chooses to fixate on a dictionary definition. Meanwhile, Trump's followers continue to believe a fraud and the Republican party is devolving into a carnival of cranks and paranoids.

 

So, what's a real insurrection? Shapiro cites the Shays' Rebellion of 1787 as an example, because the rebels attempted to steal weapons from an armory. But the context and logic are useless. Today, in a nation of 332 million people, we have an estimated 434 million guns. No one needs to steal firearms—we're armed to the teeth already. The Shays' Rebellion involved months of planning. Shapiro thinks the Jan. 6 attack did not. But the investigations are not yet complete—and, once again, he is picking at little detail from a convenient example when what he should be looking at is the big, fat problem staring him in the face.

 

Shapiro also argued in a previous Wall Street Journal editorial that Trump is not guilty of incitement. But, again, his narrow argument ignores years of fraudulent groundwork that led up to Jan. 6. The political reality here is that a defeated president held a rally on the day the electoral votes were being counted and perpetuated a fraudulent claim of a "stolen" election, rather than participate amicably in a peaceful transfer of power. Is there anything less patriotic than refusing to participate in the peaceful transition of democratic power? In his speech that morning, Rudy Giuliani called for "trial by combat". Sounds to me like bringing the gasoline to the match. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Trump's continuous and dangerous denials of reality began right after his inauguration, when Press Secretary Sean Spicer lied about the size of the crowd, and Senior Counsellor Kellyanne Conway defended the lie by calling it "alternative facts". There are no alternative facts in Webster's dictionary. They're called lies. Jan. 6 was just the natural outcome of telling gullible people a never-ending string of lies, and manipulating them for political advantage, with no regard for democracy. Or, for that matter their pocketbook, given that billionaire Trump has yet to pay a single dollar in legal fees for his feckless followers, but keeps soliciting donations. It all worked brilliantly.

 

The worst part is, we were forewarned. For years, political commentators detailed Trump's character flaws, his mendacity, his dangerous disregard of democratic norms. But conservatives wouldn't listen. They blamed the media for overreacting. It was all harmless, just Trump being Trump. That denial has come home to roost—in a violent way. Still, most Republicans remain quiet, scurrying for cover, too cowardly to tell America the truth. For them, Webster's dictionary is more helpful than quibbling about insurrection—consult the definitions of "fraud" and "delusion"—they're directly linked and describe exactly what motivated the attackers of Jan. 6.

 

Best of all, Shapiro claims the rioters who entered the Capitol were "unarmed and had no intention of overthrowing the U.S. constitutional system." He claims they weren't conspiring against our country or trying to "defraud the United States." Again, Shapiro is seizing on narrow definitions of legal terms. It's rather amazing that the Wall Street Journal publishes such poppycock.

 

For starters, how is an attempt to overturn an election not by definition a defrauding of our country? How is it not an attempt to overthrow our constitutional system? Shapiro uses the attackers' own delusional beliefs to defend them from blame—because the rioters did not believe they were attacking our constitutional system or defrauding our government, they weren't. Intent—even delusional intent—is everything, regardless of action. By this same rationale, a father who murders his son in order to send his son’s soul to heaven, is not actually committing murder. That's called an insanity plea. Where's Kellyanne Conway when you need her most?

 

Shapiro's final act of putting logic and language through a meat grinder is to complain that repeatedly calling Jan. 6 an insurrection is creating a moral panic. Worse still, he complains that Trump supporters are being negatively stereotyped. It's just crocodile tears. The real moral panic here is the Republican party's anemic response to a president who was trying to hold onto power through frivolous lawsuits and mob-style intimidation. Even after dozens of failed court cases, Trump has no moral qualms about continuing to lie to his followers. This is the party of law and order? The Republican party refuses to denounce him—that's the real moral panic at work. If you still choose to support such a leader, that ball's in your court. If you still believe Trump's big lie, a negative stereotype by less gullible people is the least of your worries.

 

Trump's false narrative is undermining the Republican party and American democracy. The media deserves its fair share of criticism and should be held accountable for its failings. But what they call Jan. 6 is practically meaningless compared to what the attack on our Capitol—and the Republican party's response—laid bare. Fixating on word choice and negative stereotypes of Trump supporters is just borrowing from the same woke culture playbook that conservatives supposedly hate. If Republicans want to embrace massive fraud, delusions and paranoia, own it. But don't turn around and play the victim. It's disingenuous and it's quickly turned the GOP into a clown car towing a dumpster on fire.

 

This brand of Republicanism is not ready to stand up to Donald Trump. Notice how few of Trump's top administration officials are willing to give a deposition to the Jan. 6 committee? Wonder why they're pleading the fifth? That's the real tragedy here—but that's not what blindly loyal Republicans want you to think about. They want you to idiotically tinker with dictionary definitions to distract you from the real root of Jan. 6—the bozo who got elected, in part, because of Hillary's emails.

That's the central operating principle of today's Republican party. Lie, distract, and lie again. But with lies come responsibilities—and deluded, violent goons. Call the Jan. 6 insurrection what you want—but don't pretend the GOP's denial of responsibility doesn't stink of something foul. Trump has done more damage to the GOP brand in four years than anyone thought imaginable. If Shapiro wants that back, he needs to broaden the list of words whose definitions he's concerned about.