close

The invasion of the Capitol

6 min read
article image -

The Trump-rally-turned-invasion of the Capitol on Jan. 6 provides an opportunity to examine the role of public protest in a democracy. First, it is important to recognize that incompetence and their clear lack of a coherent plan should not reduce the threat these “protesters” posed; were it not for Eugene Goodman, a quick-thinking, cool under pressure Capitol Police officer who retreated strategically away from vulnerable Senate floor, Senate leadership and Mike Pence would have been defenseless in the face of the mob. The valiant efforts of the vastly outnumbered members of law enforcement clearly prevented a greater tragedy. While it is probably true that most of the 8,000-strong mob that invaded the Capitol were not intent on murder, it is increasingly evident that at least a few were, and had those motivated individuals been given the opportunity to do harm to the politicians they claimed to want to kill, they probably would have done so.

“The right of the people peaceably to assemble” is a constitutional right. When Donald Trump was elected, Democratic women organized a massive (almost half a million people) march on Washington just after Trump’s inauguration expressing their displeasure with Trump’s treatment of women. This peaceful march gave many Democrats an outlet for their frustrations with the political system, and served to remind Trump that he lost the popular vote. While it may have energized the Democrats after their devastating defeat, it did not seem to affect Trump’s behavior.

In the wake of the police killing George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as other political activists, organized a number of marches and demonstrations to bring attention to the subject of police brutality (especially against Black men). While the organizers declared their intent to demonstrate peacefully, some activists were more aggressive, sometimes damaging property or clashing with police. There were also looters with no political agenda who simply took advantage of the situation, as well as some right-wing agent provocateurs. While undoubtedly some protesters took the opportunity to physically express their rage at the police, most rallies were peaceful, and any destruction or violence was antithetical to the purpose of the protest.

Protests can have multiple goals. One is to bring attention to an issue. Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling and the BLM protests did this for police violence, as did the protests of the 1960s for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. These often purposefully disrupted the lives of regular citizens; BLM protesters sometimes blocked highways illegally, snarling traffic. While a backlash might make this strategy questionable, inconvenience is the point. Disrupting lives gets people’s attention. Daniel Gillion, a political scientist at Penn who has studied the issue, found out that protests can be effective over time, on both public opinion and politicians. For example, over the course of a year of protests, public opinion on BLM changed from negative 4% to plus 28%.

As these protests gathered strength, they also demonstrated the popular support for the issue, which is the second goal of a protest movement – to demonstrate to politicians that they should support an issue because they might lose their job if they don’t. This can become a form of intimidation; this was the goal of the Trump invasion of the Capitol. The benign version of the invasion of the Capitol was that they thought if the Congress were surrounded by thousands of demonstrators in support of Trump, they would be forced to accede to the “popular will” (regardless of the Constitution) and allow Trump to remain in office. The more critical interpretation is that it was a serious attempt to physically take over the government (a coup); the fact that they acted like the proverbial dog that caught the car when they were in the Senate chambers suggests that interpretation is not accurate.

Another question related to political protests is legality: Should protesters ever break the law? Civil disobedience is based on the idea of breaking unjust laws to highlight the injustice, and this is clearly an effective tactic. An important aspect of this tactic is that the people who break the law don’t try to evade law enforcement; they accept the punishment. Their presence in jail highlights the injustice, and if enough people participate, they can overwhelm the judicial system, forcing authorities to question the utility of the unjust law.

More radical political activists sometimes denigrate patient, peaceful demonstrations because they seem to be asking political authority to cede power voluntarily. They argue (as Frederick Douglass said), “Power never concedes without a demand.” Students in the 1960s occupied administrative buildings so they could not be ignored.

Pressure ads urgency. If a political movement applies pressure before they’ve achieved enough popular support, they risk getting crushed. But without pressure, there is no change. Successful political organizing catalyzes change by correcting an imbalance between political power and popular support. During the Civil Rights era, political power oppressed African Americans. The Civil Rights movement made people aware of the injustice, especially people in the North who were often unaware of conditions the Jim Crow South, and were able to change the political calculus, forcing power to yield to their demands.

The political protest Jan. 6 could have been similar to the Woman’s March, allowing Trump supporters to feel solidarity in the face of an electoral defeat. But once they went to the Capitol, and invaded the building, it changed from a peaceful protest to an attempt to illegally change the government.

Peaceful, political protest is an important part of a democracy, and the political beliefs of the protesters are irrelevant to their right to protest. Such protest can be effective if they bring attention to an issue the political authorities have ignored, and the cause is popular enough to force politicians to react. The problem for the Trump protesters was that most people were already aware of the issue, and did not agree with them. Those who invaded the Capitol must be held accountable. While not everyone who chanted “Hang Mike Pence” should be charged with attempted murder, individuals who attacked law enforcement and damaged property need to be charged for their crimes.

It is important that we separate peaceful political protest from insurrection. If there is no penalty to going outside the law to overturn the results of an election you don’t like, it will happen again. And next time, it might work.

Kent James has a doctorate in History and Policy from Carnegie Mellon University and is an adjunct in the History Department at Washington & Jefferson College.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today