"The Shofar Army took the stage, nine white men and one woman draped in fringed Jewish prayer shawls, each clutching a ram’s horn — the instrument traditionally sounded on the Jewish high holidays.
“Blow the trumpet in Zion! Sound the alarm on the holy mountain!” bellowed the leader. “The day of the Lord is here!”
He blew his shofar three times, and the crowd responded as instructed with “Arise, oh Lord, let your enemies be scattered.” The rest of the Shofar Army blew theirs in unison.
So began a two-day, far-right Christian gathering last month called “Patriots Arise for God and Country.” The event, at a Gettysburg hotel, was organized by Francine and Allen Fosdick, self-described prophets who have promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory that falsely accuses Democrats of being pedophiles who control the country.
Speakers included current and former aides to Donald Trump, pastors, and politicians. But perhaps the main event came around 4:30 p.m. that Saturday.
“Last year, it did seem like God abandoned many of us. I felt I did not hear his voice,” Pennsylvania State Sen. Doug Mastriano told the crowd. The Franklin County Republican described the “persecution and oppression” endured by him and others who have challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 election. He said he couldn’t believe his country “had become such a dark evil place.”
But, Mastriano said, the faithful persevered.
“We have the power of God with us,” he said. “We have Jesus Christ that we’re serving here. He’s guiding and directing our steps.”
It was classic Mastriano — how God told him to run for governor and how he was the candidate who could save the state from its descent into evil."
MORE AT:
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Mastriano is now a front-runner for the GOP nomination for governor of Pennsylvania. He’s also become the epitome of a resurgent movement of Christian nationalism.
"Well a one-party state needs to seize the courts and this court is clearly a Republican court, This kind of started with Bush v Gore 20 years ago…
The rulings check off Republican dream points. Is it really the case that the founders wrote the Constitution electing to legitimate every kind of Republican wish list in recent years?…
I think that it is probably constitutionally dubious. I think it is doubtful that the founders had access to the Republican Party platforms of the 21st. Century.
It’s extremely worrisome. We had a president voted in by a minority of the population appoint three radical right Supreme Court justices to join some already radical Supreme Court justices and they’re fulfilling, point by point a Republican Party platform. To the point where Congresswoman Boebert said the founders intended the church to guide the government.
9:38 The Constitution is becoming part of this mythic past this invented mythic past…that Republicans are just inventing that justifies their political priorities. That’s something that obviously is characteristic of a one-party state. And that’s where we’re tilting at the very least. To a one party state where that party is supported by only a minority of the population."
"Our next guest has advised the January 6th Committee. He’s the author of “How Fascism Works” Jason Stanley. And he joins Hari Sreenivasan to analyze the state of American democracy.
Hari,
2:20
There was a concern for the rule of law would catch up to them but we haven’t seen it catch up to anybody yet.
JS
Absolutely and that’s why the coup is as if it were ongoing. Because after it’s abundantly clear that everyone surrounding the president felt that they were in severe legal jeopard and that’s what held them back from going ahead, We know that by state by state legislatures, such as Michigan to Trump’s inner circle saw clearly and obviously that this was an illegal attempt to overthrow the United State of America.
And were blocked from going forward.
I wish that as a philosopher that Socrates was right that Justice could be its own reward but what what we’ve seen is interlocutors claim people are only just because they can be punished. And what we’ve seen is that fear of punishment is what kept American democracy alive. And now that everyone has seen that there is no accountability that there are no consequences means the next time what’s to stop the coup from succeeding.
3:59 Hari,
I also wonder about the violence. Not just the day of but the idea that there were so many people that knew this had a very high probability of getting out of hand and yet continue. We’re talking multiple emails and texts going back and forth where people were in consultation and they were actually scared about what could happen on January 6th.
JS
I’m very glad that you asked about that Harry. That’s one thing that I’m regularly asked about in this context in my expertise as a philosopher of language and in particular as an expert and scholar on rhetoric that encourages and justifies violence.
What we’ve seen, as I’ve talked about on this show before, is explicit calls for violence and revenge. A narrative that lays out a justification for political violence. Any expert on political violence would tell you that this kind of talk is exactly the kind of talk the justifies the political violence.
You say take back our country you’ve been betrayed, this is a revolution. All of this kind of vocabulary is setting up mass political violence. Then you have this new revelation from yesterday that I really focused on about weapons that the president said OK they should be allowed in with their weapons.
Think about that in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing arms to be carried everywhere essentially.
So this idea that we’re going to have a mass prevalence of weapons in the run-up of an election that by all indicators looks like it will involve political violence and then the president saying they should be allowed to bring weapons.
I’m very concerned about the kind of normalization of political violence that kind of you know, this is the American way to carry guns, to have a militia.
The Supreme Court is saying no, the correct reading of the Second Amendment is be armed to defend yourself against what? That testimony yesterday seemed to suggest that the president was building a narrative that revenge for a stolen election could involve things in the Constitution that allow us to bear arms that and that kind of gelling of the narrative between the Supreme Court’s decision and yesterday’s testimony concerns me deeply.
7:01Hari,
The cases in the last couple of weeks have indicted us a court that’s kind of finding that it has the power and is willing to use it. It has shaken for a lot of people the legitimacy of the court. The public opinion numbers are down in the 20s and I wonder what that does to a functioning democracy if we lose one branch of government or at least receive it as similar to others partisan,
7:41 JS
Well a one-party state needs to seize the courts and this court is clearly a Republican court, This kind of started with Bush v Gore 20 years ago…
The rulings check off Republican dream points. Is it really the case that the founders wrote the Constitution electing to legitimate every kind of Republican wish list in recent years?…
I think that it is probably constitutionally dubious. I think it is doubtful that the founders had access to the Republican Party platforms of the 21st. Century.
It’s extremely worrisome. We had a president voted in by a minority of the population appoint three radical right Supreme Court justices to join some already radical Supreme Court justices and they’re fulfilling, point by point a Republican Party platform. To the point where Congresswoman Boebert said the founders intended the church to guide the government.
9:38 The Constitution is becoming part of this mythic past this invented mythic past…that Republicans are just inventing that justifies their political priorities. That’s something that obviously is characteristic of a one-party state. And that’s where we’re tilting at the very least. To a one party state where that party is supported by only a minority of the population.
10:16 Hari,
I want to talk about the role of fear.
Because one of the things that came up its testimony recently in these hearing is that the committee asks witnesses has anybody basically tried to intimidate you and they get a series of responses that almost read like some sort of script from a mob movie. Hey you’re going to be a team player. I’m going to remember you. The day before their testimony.
How is it that either the president of his supporters still have this much power and sway being out of office.
jS,
This is a long theme in the literature on authoritarianism and fascism. People always make a comparison between the fascist leader and a mob boss.
In a rule of law state everyone is equal. Everyone is subject to law equally.
In a fascist state or maybe in an authoritarian state of whatever kind of stripe, it’s all about loyalty to the leader and loyalty to the party rather than rule of law.
It’s loyalty rather than rule of law. That’s all you have to think about it.
There’s a lot of literature, say in the Frankfurt School about theorizing the relationship between the Maria boss and the leader of a one-party authoritarian state à la Stalin or Hitler because it’s loyalty to the leader that replaces the rule of law and this is just classic what we’re seeing. We’re seeing loyalty to the leader. And the way it works is, if we’re headed towards a one party state in this country, let’s be clear about what’s happening. If it’s not led by Trump it will be led by someone else because what we’ve seen shows a bunch of people what is possible. And there’s no accountability. So that is where we are headed unless Americans wake up and we all do something about it together.
The way that works is the people who show loyalty will be protected. The institutions that show loyalty will be protected. And everyone else will be smashed. This is really central in the literature on authoritarianism.
12:36 Hari,
So what should happen to the people who supported the president. Obviously there are trials happening for the people who actually walked into the Capital right now. But relatively speaking they’re small fries. This is all the people who had the ability to stop this before it started. Or even after it started. The ones who were advising the president in ways that were anti-democratic. What should happen to them? If nothing happens to them, then what?
JS
I’m really against the idea that only the small fry gets punished. I think that to some extent they are victims as well of their leaders. The fact that when the leaders of a country say that people should go onto the streets and overthrow that country because they’ve been betrayed. Then many people will believe them.
So I think that the United States has been betrayed by political leaders. Some accountability must occur. If it doesn’t occur then you will see what we see right now which is in state after state the election apparatus being taken over by people who know that it was a complete lie that the elections were stolen and think America should be run just by our team. And that American democracy, that’s what the enemy is.
So, there must be accountability.
There is a large portion of today’s Republican Party that has proven itself to be against democracy. What the January 6th Commission did is was so important for our democracy is they showed that Senator Hawley, Senator Cruz and other senators who went along with it knew it was a lie.
So they were part of a conspiracy to overthrow American democracy. And they should not be allowed to be political leaders. I think that to me is the kind of accountability I’d like to see. I don’t think prisons need to be in the picture. But some accountability must happen. You cannot have a political party that is opposed to democracy.
14:50 Hari,
What is uniquely American that got us into this situation or prevented it from being worse. Are we capable of preventing something like this from happening or is it in our structure build where this is bound to happen again.
JS,
Democracy is always fragile. Democracy is hard. This idea that we will perpetually be a democracy is a fiction. We’re actually a new democracy. We only became a democracy once Black Americans were given the right to vote in the 1960s. And right now we’re still a partial democracy.
Democracies are fragile things by their very nature.
A small sliver of humans throughout history have lived in democracies though democracy dates as an ancient system of government.
The reason we’re powerful as a country and the reason we’re special and the reason I’m so proud to be an American is because the vocabulary of democracy is interwoven with being an American.
So unlike other countries that can use democracy sort as fig leaf, American democracy is a rallying cry. It’s something that the Civil Rights Movement used. It’s something that liberation movements in America have always been able to use.
From Fredrick Douglas on they’ve been able to say we are these these ideals and we’re not living up to them.
That gives us a unique kind of power that has always in the past helped us in fits and starts. We often go back but slowly move ahead. Forward then backward. Two steps forward then one step back. We’re seeing that again.
Those of us who study democracy. Those of us who philosophically, historically understand that democracies are fragile because one group will always want to rise up and seize power and take it for themselves. And that’s the natural state of things.
So it’s always hard. We should recognize it’s always hard. Preserving democracy is and will always be a difficult thing to do."
***
"Democracy itself is on the ballot this election year. The country needs a broad coalition to defeat candidates who would help former president Donald Trump, or another politician in his mold, again attempt a coup in 2024. Which is why it is not just shameless, but dangerous, that Democrats have spent tens of millions this year promoting Republican extremists.
Even worse was Democrats’ use of this strategy in key presidential swing state Pennsylvania, where state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R), a leading 2020 election denier, last month won the GOP gubernatorial nomination. He spent a mere $370,000 on television ads. His Democratic opponent, Josh Shapiro, spent more than $840,000 on ads designed to help him win the Republican primary.
The democratic process survived 2020 because enough Republicans in positions of responsibility refused to act on Mr. Trump’s lies. Meanwhile, Mr. Mastriano pushed the notion that Pennsylvania’s legislature could appoint its own slate of Trump electors, even though Joe Biden won the state’s popular vote. Should Mr. Mastriano win the governor’s race, he could spark a constitutional crisis in 2024 by trying to prevent the state from sending to Washington a slate of Democratic electors, against the will of the voters. Even if he loses, he will have a high platform from which to spew his poisonous nonsense."
MORE AT:
The Washington Post
Opinion Democrats must stop promoting Republican extremists
June 29, 2022 at 5:16 p.m. EDT
Newsweek
Ron DeSantis Now Favorite for 2024 as Donald Trump Hurt by Jan. 6 Hearings
By Ewan Palmer On 7/1/22 at 3:59 AM EDT
I think Doug Mastriano’s views match Republican base voters views more closely than Ron DeSantis.
I think Republican base voters would chose Doug Mastriano as president.
You could say Tucker Carlson is involved in the creation of the views of Republican Party base voters.
And Tucker Carlson is waiting in the wings.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can add your voice to this blog by posting a comment.