Mandates

 

If one turns on American news these days (after President Trump was inaugurated a second time), the word “mandate” comes up frequently. I doubt many Republicans or Democrats would quarrel with the current Wikipedia definition:

In representative democracies, a mandate is a perceived legitimacy to rule through popular support. Mandates are conveyed through elections, in which voters choose political parties and candidates based on their own policy preferences. The election results are then interpreted to determine which policies are popularly supported. A majority government provides a clear mandate, while plurality or coalition government suggests a lesser mandate, requiring greater compromise between parties. Parties with strong mandates are free to implement their preferred policies with the understanding that they are supported by the people.

In the 2024 US election, Harris received 48.33% of the popular vote, while Trump received 49.80%. Neither received more than 50% of the votes, so there was no winner-by-majority, only winner-by-plurality. The percentage by which Trump won was 1.5% of the American voters.

This is all basic information—the kind I skipped over when in high school. It garners special significance for me because President Trump, Elon Musk, and other actors in the current administration and Republican congress use mandate as a key word in explaining and justifying their activity. Now that judges, some appointed by Trump, are putting several of his executive orders on pause, the word “mandate” is used to suggest the judges do not understand that the American people have asked for these orders (not that even a majority makes an action constitutional).

It is worth remembering that the MAGA mandate (and there is one) is based on a plurality, that the difference among those who voted for a president in 2024 is 1.5%, and that there are many, many citizens who strongly object to wholesale gutting of government organizations. The electoral college can never be used to gauge how many angry citizens are watching the White House.

As I’ve remarked in the past, I’m a man without a party because each party either omits life-giving values or includes life-defying ones. I’m not looking for perfection, just more than a binary least-of-two-evils option. The term “plurality” is particularly relevant in the parliamentary system where, lacking a majority, the prime minister must form a coalition. This, like ranked voting, gives a greater proportion of the electorate influence in matters of governance.

As I drift away from the topic of “mandate,” I’ll end with a prediction. Assuming this country still operates as the kind of democracy that most of us think of when we think of the duopoly—assuming that, the Democrats face their biggest challenge in 2028 because they have proven unable to produce a timely candidate that can beat someone like Donald Trump or, I assume, JD Vance. In 2023, 43% of voters claimed the Independent label, and this percentage is likely rising. It would take a drastically different Democratic party to win a majority of this group over to their presidential candidate.

Insurrection Day, a National Day of Remembrance

 

With the power invested in me by a persistent state of shock, I proclaim January 6 as Insurrection Day.

Some days should not be forgotten, both for the losses incurred, as well as the protection offered by not forgetting the past.

Pearl Harbor Day (December 7) ranks as such a day. It is remembered for its damages, although now the Japanese is an ally.

Patriot Day (9/11) ranks as another, remembered both for the damages as well as the awareness that America needs to realize it is hated in the extreme by various groups.

Now, four years after the storming of the capitol in Washington D.C., the damages and potential recurrence must be held in our memory. Insurrection Day has a complicating feature: many of those who saw it first hand and many who saw it on the news continue (with increasing vigor) to live in complete denial about its origins or significance. This denial haunts many of us.

For months prior to that day, President Trump predicted a stolen election (if he lost). On August 17, 2020 he said, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged, remember that.”

On November 3, 2020, President Trump lost the election. Of the 62 lawsuits he and others files concerning election fraud, only 1 was temporarily awarded, only to be overturned later by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On December 19, 2020, President Trump tweeted, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. . . . Be there, will be wild!”

January 6, 2021 was wild if one is willing to ennoble it with such a morally-neutral term. Chants of “Kill Mike Pence” were repeated by the marauders, while the Capitol building was being destroyed and people’s bodies were beaten. “Within 36 hours, five people died: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes, including a police officer who died of natural causes a day after being assaulted by rioters” (January 6 United States Capitol attack).

Initially, many Republicans were aghast at what had transpired on January 6th. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (a Trump supporter) perhaps said it best on February 13, 2021: “There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. . . . The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”

The events leading up to and during the January 6 insurrection are well documented, often by the perpetrators themselves. One of the most thorough, accessible, and riveting investigations of the events resulted from The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. After the Republicans began renouncing their denunciations of Donald Trump, the Committee was formed, established on June 30, 2021. On December 22, 2022, the final report was published online. Two leading Republicans on the committee, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were censured by the Republican National Committee for their roles in the investigation. (They are not the first Republicans turned into American heroes by Donald Trump, John McCain being a prior example.)

The January 6 hearings, stunning and persuasive as they are, have been ignored by most of the United States. Early on they were dismissed as biased even though, until recently, Liz Cheney was recognized as an exemplary member of the Republican Party. They had to be dismissed early on or an entire system of denial and corruption among Republicans would have been dismantled. It would have found itself where, perhaps, the Democratic Party finds itself today: in need of a complete reconstruction.

While this post will be read almost entirely by those who do not need to read it and ignored by those who should read it, it has the benefit of listing, with a brief description, each of the videos of the January 6 committee. The reason I’m not embedding the videos is because they have been marked as “age restricted” (and therefore non embeddable), something that strikes me as spurious considering the rationality of the discussions and the violence of videos that are not age restricted.

Update 2/7/25: having finished Cassidy Hutchinson’s Enough, I review it here—noting that it is unlikely either that book or the videos below will change the minds of those who are, to use an increasinly suspect word, loyal to Donald Trump.

 

The Playlist

The entire playlist posted on YouTube by the Committee itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0yNe3cFx4&list=PLEbIPgPzQ1jwz9iajNVihbawtRjprkHeD

Hearing 1

It starts about 14 minutes into the video: https://www.youtube.com/live/hZ0yNe3cFx4?si=Vb9au-mg8vBBMGUh&t=841

It introduces a nonfictional legal, political, and cultural drama. It includes footage of the Proud Boys and the storming of the Capitol (about 1 hr into tape), the questioning of Officer Caroline Edwards, who was later called “Nancy Pelosi’s dog” while she was defending the Capitol (1 hr 28 min), and the documentarian Nick Quested who watched the events unfold (1 hr 31 min). The statements from these two last about a half hour. The tape concludes with brief interviews of those who thought they were doing the will of Donald Trump as they broke into the Capitol.

Hearing 6/13/22

The bulk of this hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/pr5QUInmGI8?si=8jPjA8v59kPld0K2&t=185) argues that Donald Trump lost the election, knew he lost the election (yes, there are witnesses), and “lit the fuse” to the insurrection.

Hearing 6/16/22

This hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/vBjUWVKuDj0?si=-LTUfFeXyGlTLrzc&t=247) investigates the role of Mike Pence (Hang Mike Pence) and those who attempted to pressure Pence to overturn the results of the election. The footage includes Donald Trump’s tweet that Mike Pence lacked the courage.

Hearing 6/21/22

This hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/xa43_z_82Og?si=NTG7-utcO_OZQM_F&t=646) shows that the pressure exerted on Pence was exerted on many others including several key election officials who, like Pence, resisted the pressure. It includes the framing of Ruby Freeman and her daughter, two citizens who were falsely accused of election fraud, perhaps the footage that shows most clearly the bullying nature of the Trump team.

Hearing 6/23/22

This hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/Z4535-VW-bY?si=xv72gmS43OvHjVO1&t=617) focuses on Donald Trump’s unsuccessful efforts to have the Department of Justice uphold his contention that the election was stolen. In the face of growing evidence that the election was by-and-large fair, Jeff Clark drafted a letter was drafted to urge the state of Georgia to reconsider the election results. This effort was rejected by the Department of Justice. Also indicted for election fraud were the Dominion voting machines (an accusation that later cost Fox News $787 million).

Hearing 6/28/22

This hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/HeQNV-aQ_jU?si=bLBnMtkEFHBlFY1s&t=340) allows Cassidy Hutchinson, a Republican member of President Trump’s Whitehouse staff to explain how she saw and heard the events of January 6 unfolding. She later published the book Enough.

Hearing 7/12/22

This hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/rrUa0hfG6Lo?si=jR2BUoL7gdBPzGt6&t=675) covers the time from December 14, 2020 (when the electoral college met and certified the results of the election) up through the morning of January 6, 2021. The hearing includes testimony from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel under President Donald Trump. The hearing stresses the contrast between the Trump White House, that knew he had lost the election, with his supporters from around the country who were never disabused of “the steal” until it was too late.

Hearing 7/21/22

This hearing (https://www.youtube.com/live/pbRVqWbHGuo?si=wx3NzNUEiRAk2fYI&t=159) provides a detailed account of what Donald Trump was doing during the insurrection itself. Notably, he spent hours watching the riot on television without responding to requests to calm the mob.