Today’s Edition: Resisting revisionist history.

July 27, 2021

          The Select Committee investigating the assault on the Capitol on January 6th begins its work on Tuesday—six-and-half months after the insurrection. It beggars the imagination that it took less than a month for Republicans to convert an assault on democracy into an unhinged conspiracy theory that serves as a litmus test for party loyalty in the GOP. Trump incited his followers to insurrection on live television, but Republicans now claim that the violent mob was composed of “tourists” or “Antifa” or Black Lives Matter provocateurs—anyone except Trump supporters trying to stop the count of Electoral ballots by Congress. The GOP’s attempt at revisionist history is the reason why the work of the Select Committee is vitally important. For good or ill, a nation’s identity is defined by its history. Ensuring that America’s history faithfully represents the events of January 6th is essential to marking what America is—and what it is not.

          Republicans have fled the hearings like a criminal flees the scene of a crime, so they will be reduced to heckling from the cheap seats—efforts Kevin McCarthy began in earnest on Monday. He called the two Republicans who accepted appointment to the Committee—Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger—“Pelosi Republicans.”  See Talking Points Memo, “McCarthy Dismisses GOPers Who Don’t Buy The Big Lie As ‘Pelosi Republicans’,” and Politico, “Cheney-McCarthy war of words heats up over Jan. 6 investigation.” The GOP counterprogramming will be loud, clownish, and maddening. Their aim is to distract you, Dear Reader. Do not let them succeed. Ignore the noise, pay attention to the evidence. Years hence, when historians examine the work of the Committee, McCarthy’s childish name-calling will be forgotten. The testimony, documents, and findings of the Committee will be the evidence on which historians judge whether Trump incited an insurrection to overthrow the 2020 election. They will conclude that he did, and they will wonder in amazement and disgust that the Republican Party did its best to conceal that fact.

          Do not expect the Committee to obtain all of the relevant evidence. Republicans will do their best to thwart and delay the work of the Committee. It is true that the Committee has the power to issue subpoenas. See Talking Points Memo, “Chair Of Jan. 6 Committee Offers Insight Into The Panel’s Subpoena Plans.” (“Rep. Bennie Thompson . . . signaled that the panel is willing to subpoena members of Congress or former President Trump.”) But if witnesses refuse to comply with subpoenas, Congress must ask courts to compel attendance by the witnesses. Trump will not voluntarily appear before the Committee, neither will Kevin McCarthy, Paul Gosar, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, or dozens of other witnesses with relevant knowledge. No matter, people around them will cooperate with the Committee, thereby establishing a unrebutted record of the misconduct by the recalcitrant witnesses. The Chair of the Committee, Bennie Thompson, has declared that “nothing is off limits” in the investigation. See op-ed by Rep. Bennie Thompson in WaPo, “We have started investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Nothing will be off-limits.”

          So, have patience and remain confident that the work of the Committee will uncover the truth and establish the historical record. If it does that, the Committee will perform a great service to the nation by righting the narrative as it writes our history.

Infrastructure Bill.

The ever-elusive bipartisan infrastructure bill remains elusive as of Monday evening. It appears that Democratic Senators who were not included in the bill who chair committees that must approve the bill are finally getting a chance to weigh-in on a bill they did not negotiate. See WaPo, “Senate infrastructure talks in political jeopardy as infighting spills out into the open.” (“The last-minute complications . . . come in part because powerful Senate chairmen are now offering input on a package whose policies encompass multiple committees.”) Republicans are claiming that Democrats are reneging on agreements made by a handful of moderates who had no authority to bind the Democratic caucus. See YahooNews, “Infrastructure bill on the rocks, as GOP rejects Dem compromise.” In other words, it’s a mess. Still, Senator Rob Portman tells us that it is only a matter of hours before a bill is ready to move to the Senate floor. We’ll see.

          In a disturbing but expected development, Trump is urging Republican Senators to abandon efforts at bipartisan compromise until the GOP recaptures majorities in Congress (which Trump believes will be in 2022). See The Hill, “Trump pressures McConnell, GOP to ditch bipartisan talks until they have majority.” (“Senate Republicans are being absolutely savaged by Democrats on the so-called 'bipartisan' infrastructure bill. Don’t do the infrastructure deal, wait until after we get proper election results in 2022 or otherwise, and regain a strong negotiating stance.”) With Trump actively lobbying against the bipartisan bill, is there any realistic chance that ten Senate Republicans will vote in favor of the bill? If the past is prologue, the answer is “No.”

Vaccination mandates begin among governments and private employers.

The fact that unvaccinated portions of the population have served as a breeding ground for the Delta variant surge in infections is finally making people angry and proactive. See Eugene Robinson, WaPo, “It is in everyone’s interest to save anti-vaxxers from their stubbornness.” (“We are witnessing a massive exercise in self-harm. And the rest of us — those who chose to protect ourselves — are being forced to suffer collateral damage. It’s not fair, and we have every right to be angry about it.”) The anger, frustration, and pandemic weariness of governments and employers are prompting them to demand proof of vaccination. See, e.g., NBC, “California is requiring proof of Covid vaccination for state employees;” Fox News, “Veterans Affairs to mandate COVID vaccine for health care personnel, first such mandate for federal agency;” Reuters, New York City orders government workers to get COVID vaccine;” and Nashville Public Radio, “Nashville’s Largest Private Employer Decides To Require COVID Vaccinations, Starting With Leaders.”

          Three months ago, such vaccine mandates would have been met with right-wing media outrage and protests. With the rise in deaths among the unvaccinated population, the mandates seem less controversial. Of course, there will be the occasional irate employee who is escorted from the building by security, but we may finally be moving to a public health policy that has a chance of controlling the virus on a national scale. Good.

Filibuster: A correction, and an amplification.

          Yesterday, I said that the length of a ‘talking filibuster’ was measured by the bladder endurance of a single Senator. In fact, Senators can tag team their bathroom breaks (and floor speeches) to keep a filibuster going as long as they have 41 colleagues on the floor to sustain the filibuster. Thanks to the several readers who noted this error. The fact that the “talking filibuster” can go on indefinitely demonstrates why it is not a solution to the obstructionist and anti-democratic nature of the filibuster.

          I cited an op-ed by Charles M. Blow yesterday in which he criticized Joe Biden’s resistance to eliminating the filibuster. Charles M. Blow, “Opinion | Mr. President, You’re Just Plain Wrong on Voter Suppression.” Due to space constraints, I did not cite the most moving passage of Blow’s essay. In discussing the assertion that voters merely need to turn out at high rates to overcome voter suppression efforts, Blow said the following:

          Biden is basically saying here what Black America has heard forever: “No matter how high they make the hill, your only choice is to climb it. I applaud your ascension. My God, aren’t your legs strong.” Black people are eternally disgusted that they always get the hill and others don’t. There is nothing glorious in Black people waiting hours in line to vote, sometimes into the wee hours of the morning, while people in whiter precincts breeze in and out. This is wrong. This is outrageous. This is a time tax. Don’t pat us on the head; take us down the hill.

          The failure to make voting rights a priority of equal importance to the infrastructure bill effectively imposes a “time tax” on Black voters that is not imposed on white voters. Blow’s comment is a healthy reminder to us all—including me. I frequently assert that we can overcome voter suppression legislation if we turn out at a high rate. While true, we should be honest about the fact that it is Black voters who will pay an unfair price in turning out at higher rates. That is the pernicious nature of the voter suppression legislation being passed in Republican-controlled states. If those laws extend the time it takes to vote from 15 minutes to two hours, how many voters will walk away because they must tend to children or jobs or health? If it is only a couple of thousand in each state, that could be the margin of victory in a competitive race. That is why the filibuster should (at the very least) be modified to make an exception for voting rights legislation.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I am not going to talk about Merrick Garland in today’s newsletter. But I do want to share with you that no other issue in the last several months has generated such a voluminous and vigorous response. Merrick Garland has touched a nerve with Democratic voters. To be clear, several readers sent emails defending Garland, saying that we should not be impatient because Garland is (presumably) working silently and slowly behind the scenes to heal the DOJ. As my lovely wife a.k.a. “Managing Editor” reminds me from time to time, “Don’t tell me how to feel.” The feelings of frustration and unfairness among Democrats are real. Telling them they should feel differently (“Don’t be impatient”) is not a solution. The DOJ is compounding it problems by its refusal to be transparent with the public about what it is—and is not—doing.

          Someone in the administration needs to address this growing restiveness among the party faithful. And to be clear, saying “Trust us” isn’t sufficient.  No one is expecting promises of prosecution or disclosures that might harm investigations, but the only statement to date by Garland is that he will “not look back.” That vacuum must be filled, or Democrat faithful will fill it with unwarranted assumptions and feelings of frustration that will be counterproductive in the coming election cycle.

          Remember, ignore the noise surrounding the Select Committee investigation. Focus on the evidence. And after you see and hear the evidence for yourself, tell a friend. Help shape the future of America by ensuring that our history faithfully represents what happened on January 6th.

          Talk to you tomorrow!