- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Just because Republicans choose unreality doesn’t mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.
On January 6, 2021, I watched CNN as thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol. As someone well-versed in watching tragedy on television, I was struck by just how indisputable the facts were at the time: violent, red-hat-clad MAGA rioters, followed by Republicans in Congress, tried to stop democracy in its tracks. Trump had told his followers that the protest in Washington, DC, “will be wild,” and in the assault that followed his speech, some rioters smeared feces on the walls of the Capitol. Hundreds of them have since been convicted on charges ranging from assault on federal officers to seditious conspiracy. These are stubborn facts, the kind that do not care about your feelings. These facts include the inalienable truth that Trump is the first president in American history to reject the peaceful transfer of power.
It never occurred to me that these facts could somehow be perverted by partisanship. But three years later, we are seeing just that, as Republicans cling to the lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” by Joe Biden and are poised to make Trump their 2024 nominee. And perhaps even more dangerous than the GOP ditching reality is the news media’s inability to cover Trumpism as the threat to democracy that it very much is.
…
But the problem is, when all you have is conventional political framing, everything looks like politics as usual. One candidate makes a claim; the other disputes it. Two sides are divided, etc. This framing only works if both parties operate within the frameworks of a shared reality. But Trumpism doesn’t allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trump’s supporters believe their leader’s reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be “objective,” or they’re simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sides—one based in reality, one not—is helping pave the road for authoritarianism.
I would rather not vote than vote for someone whose first response to a genocide is rushing as many American military assets and weapons as possible to enable it.
You do realize that not everyone in your country has fully assimilated to your extremely chauvinist worldview right?
What’s chauvinist about not wanting to make a bad situation worse?
It’s the orientation that enabling a genocide is somehow excusable when it’s “your guy”, combined with the implicit understanding that something to do with foreign policy (itself a chauvinist term) shouldn’t affect how people vote when bad things at home are at stake. Like it’s sports or something.
I’m sensitive to this because I just don’t have the luxury of disregarding what happens to brown and brown-adjacent people as a result of US “foreign policy”. The bad situation we’re in is directly the result of decisions made (and being refused to get made) by our harm reduction president and his administration.
No it’s not. Voting for someone doesn’t mean you think they’re ok.
I get that people are capable of doing that, but I don’t find the party which is completely unreachable on the genocide they’re participating in as a credible alternative to the openly fascist party.