When colonial Americans declared their independence on July 4, 1776, they rejected more of British rule. They explicitly denounced the British form of government and the unregulated norms, traditions and conventions that a royal head of government entailed.
Recent hearings by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol have made it clear that efforts to resist the monarchical model remain unfinished.
The central question at hand: is the nation’s democracy ensured by loyalty to its constitution or its leaders?
Lire aussi:
Competing allegiances
The January 6 hearing offers prime-time exposure to violent footage and dramatic evidence: the question is: to what end? Read also : The Special Committee on the Initiation Approves the Value of Call for the United States to Improve the System for Self-Determination Puerto Rico, Ultimate Independence | Conference and Prayer Articles.
The sixth and most recent hearing of the Select Committee on the Capitol riots on January 6 got to the heart of the alliance issue.
Liz Cheney, the committee’s chief Republican lawmaker, said among the more than 1,000 witnesses who testified before their committee, some were intimidated to remain “loyal” to former President Trump.
U.S. citizens do not swear allegiance to any monarch, individual, or party – they swear allegiance to a constitution treated by most Americans with a level of reverence otherwise reserved for religious entities.
To date, virtually every single US government official vows to uphold and defend the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Nearly 20 hours of public hearings by the committee showed that for many members of the Trump administration – most notably Vice President Mike Pence, the White House Legal Department and Attorney General Bill Barr – swearing allegiance to the constitution was critical to the their Public Service.
Political violence and dissatisfaction with democracy
However, for a crucial and powerful minority – most notably Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, former legal adviser John Eastman, and President Trump himself – apparently it was not. See the article : Politics Two: Surprising January 6th.
A recent poll found that only half of US citizens are satisfied with their democracy. Two-thirds said the US system of government was in need of major change, if not complete reform.
Such pessimistic attitudes are an outlier compared to, for example, 80% of Australians who are satisfied with their democracy.
Dissatisfaction with democracy and its institutions is not new in modern US life.
What is new, however, is that these trends coincide with a marked increase in the number of US citizens supporting political violence. This ultimately led to the first attempted hostile takeover of Congress on January 6.
In May 1995, fewer than 10 percent of Americans said it was “justified for citizens to take violent action against the government.”
In October 2015, 23% agreed with this statement. As of December 2021, nearly a year after the riots of January 6, 34% agreed with that statement.
John Eastman, the famous and respected lawyer who advised Trump’s re-election campaign, allegedly accepted and anticipated such violence, saying:
there has been violence in the history of our country to protect democracy, or to protect the republic.
The prevailing view among those seeking to overturn the election results was that the well-being of American democracy depended on President Trump’s continued reign.
Indeed, according to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, many in Trump’s inner circle were expected and deemed necessary unrest.
Hutchinson’s testimony provided a compelling account indicating that Trump and many others understood the undemocratic and potentially violent nature of their intended actions – planned many weeks in advance – but pursued them undeterred.
What has the Jan 6 committee taught us?
To save American democracy, they undermined it. This may interest you : What Trump took from us.
The Committee of January 6 showed that US democracy continues to depend on the actions of individuals. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, Chair of the House Committee, said:
A handful of election officials in several key states have stood between Donald Trump and the overthrow of democracy.
Concluding the committee’s most recent and arguably most consequential public hearings on January 6 to date, Cheney reaffirmed the importance of such individuals:
Our nation is preserved by those who keep their oath to our constitution. Our nation is preserved by those who know the fundamental difference between right and wrong.
Will Trump be indicted?
Faced with the question of laws against leaders, the founding fathers chose the laws. But many of the people now investigated by the committee will be subjected to careful scrutiny to see if they chose loyalty to Trump over the laws.
Many people would say that an obvious path to follow now lies with Attorney General Merrick Garland. He must decide whether he will take the unprecedented step of indicting a former president with charges ranging from sedition and inciting a riot to violating campaign finance laws.
Although two-thirds of US citizens are estimated to support the trial against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the elections, some Democrats have also expressed concern about the potential pitfalls involved.
There is a danger that the Justice Department appears overly partisan and may even set a precedent in which opposing political parties indict former presidents as soon as they leave power.
But perhaps more importantly, a former U.S. federal prosecutor has argued that there’s also a high probability that the former president will never be convicted by a jury:
Despite a mountain of evidence that would condemn most people many times over, Trump would not be condemned. Criminal convictions require a unanimous verdict. In a 12-person jury, there will be Trump supporters.
Where to from here?
The United States continues to grapple with the anti-real concept of no individual above the law.
The United States has a history of reinventing itself in unique and unprecedented ways, most notably by founding a new nation based on laws instead of kings.
This critical moment, in which a former holder of the nation’s most powerful office is investigated, offers the world’s oldest democracy the opportunity to embrace its revolutionary roots and ultimately reject monarchy in all its forms.
