Saturday, January 09, 2021

On Politics: The G.O.P.’s New Distancing Policy

After years of excusing or ignoring President Trump’s most inflammatory rhetoric, many Republicans are backing away at the last minute.
Author Headshot

By Lisa Lerer

Politics Newsletter Writer

Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your wrap-up of the week in national politics. I’m Lisa Lerer, your host.

“Enough is enough,” says Senator Lindsey Graham.Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

First came the mob’s deadly rioting. Then the G.O.P.’s reputation laundering.

With less than two weeks left in the Trump administration, a number of Republicans are experiencing some last-minute revelations about the president’s character, inflammatory rhetoric and polarizing leadership of the country.

“All I can say is, count me out. Enough is enough. I’ve tried to be helpful,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of President Trump’s strongest allies, who once promised “earth-shattering” revelations of voter fraud that he falsely argued had cost Mr. Trump the election. Now, after the violent breach of the Capitol this past week, Mr. Graham is refusing to rule out using the 25th Amendment to strip his former friend of his presidential powers.

Mr. Graham is far from alone in scurrying away from all the praise he’s lavished on the president over the past four years. As a shaken Washington recovered from the violent attack on the Capitol, Republicans embraced the traditional tools of political self-preservation, offering resignations and strongly worded letters, anonymously sourced accounts of shouting matches and after-the-fact public condemnations.

Administration officials anonymously spread the word, through Axios, that they would defy any requests from Mr. Trump that “they believe would put the nation at risk or break the law,” raising the obvious question of whether they would have carried out illegal or dangerous orders over the past four years.

ADVERTISEMENT

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos quit their posts, saying they were “deeply troubled” by the president’s handling of the riot. Ms. Chao, it’s worth noting, stood next to Mr. Trump at the 2017 news conference where he insisted that “both sides” deserved blame after white supremacists incited deadly violence in Charlottesville, Va.

At least seven lower-ranking members of the Trump administration also resigned, while many more fretted that they would be unemployable.

“Now it will always be, ‘Oh yeah, you work for the guy who tried to overtake the government,’” said Mick Mulvaney, the president’s former acting chief of staff who resigned Wednesday as special envoy to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mulvaney told CNBC that the president was “not the same as he was eight months ago,” when they spoke more frequently. Left unstated was whether Mr. Trump was the same as he was four years ago, when Mr. Mulvaney called him a “terrible human being” ahead of the 2016 election.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Mulvaney’s journey with the president highlights one of the most striking features of the ongoing Republican revisionism. Many in the G.O.P. warned publicly during the 2016 campaign that Mr. Trump was fomenting exactly the kind of violence that the country witnessed on Wednesday — concerns that were quickly set aside once he took office.

Of course, some Republican officials may be truly horrified by Mr. Trump’s egging on of his supporters on Wednesday and his refusal to take immediate action to stop a violent takeover of the Capitol. Many of those same Republicans frequently offered private condemnations of his actions throughout his presidency — objections they studiously kept off the record.

But with less than 275 hours left in the Trump presidency, it’s hard not to see the political posturing embedded in their now-public condemnations.

Many inside and outside Washington are setting their sights on the new political reality to come with a Democratic-controlled government. After years of declining to police Mr. Trump’s falsehood-filled and threatening social media posts, Twitter on Friday permanently suspended his @realDonaldTrump account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” Mark Zuckerberg had earlier barred the president from Facebook and Instagram through at least the end of his term.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many of Mr. Zuckerberg’s employees noted that Democrats had secured control of the Senate before he took the action.

But at this point, it’s an open question whether any powerful Republicans will pay a serious price for their implicit or explicit support of Mr. Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and dalliances with violence. So far, the penalties seem to be measured mostly in bad media coverage.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who championed efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, was publicly disowned by his political mentor, disavowed by some of his donors and dropped by his book publisher — a move he blamed on a “woke mob.”

Other elected Republicans were condemned by their hometown newspapers in scathing editorials. Cracks even emerged in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire as The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which has been a regular Trump cheerleader for years, called on the president to resign.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pressing for resignations and permanent bans from the public sector for Trump aides, supporters and allies. Many would like to see criminal prosecutions once President-elect Joe Biden takes office. Some are even pushing to rid the federal government of all political appointees and civil servants who supported Mr. Trump.

It’s unclear whether Mr. Biden will back such efforts. Tough investigations into the previous administration could complicate his campaign promise to unite the country and his ability to get Republican support for his legislative goals. On Friday, he avoided expressing views on specific punitive actions, saying that he’d leave those judgments to his Justice Department and that voters should determine the future of politicians like Mr. Hawley and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, another Trump ally who backed the effort to overturn the election results.

For all the Republicans attempting to distance themselves from the president, 147 of them still voted to reject the results even after the siege of the Capitol. Since then, a segment of the party has embarked upon an effort to reshape reality, downplaying the violence and suggesting that far-left activists had infiltrated the crowd and posed as fans of the president.

This is obviously ridiculous: The rioters discussed plans to invade the Capitol for weeks in public social media posts. And Mr. Trump didn’t blame antifa for the rampage — instead, he told the mob, “We love you.” Still, those claims will echo through right-wing media, major news sources for the large number of activists and voters who remain loyal to Mr. Trump.

Some Republicans may be trying to jump off the Trump train at the final station. But they’ve already spent years helping fuel the engine.

Drop us a line!

We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

25th Amendment vs. impeachment: How would they work?

In the days after the violent attack on the Capitol, Democrats have begun championing efforts to remove President Trump from his final days in office.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened Mr. Trump with impeachment if he does not resign immediately. But the idea of invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to strip Mr. Trump of his powers seems less likely because Vice President Mike Pence opposes that effort.

With the clock ticking to Inauguration Day, here are the details of how both of these procedures would work.

The 25th Amendment would permit Mr. Pence and a majority of the cabinet to provide a written declaration to congressional leaders that Mr. Trump “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” That would immediately strip Mr. Trump of the powers of his office and make Mr. Pence the acting president.

But Mr. Trump could immediately send a written declaration of his own saying that he is in fact able to perform his duties. That would immediately allow him to resume his duties, unless Mr. Pence and the cabinet sent another declaration within four days restating their concerns. Mr. Pence would take over again as acting president.

That declaration would require Congress to assemble within 48 hours and to vote within 21 days. If two-thirds of members of both the House and the Senate agreed that Mr. Trump was unable to continue as president, he would be stripped permanently of the position, and Mr. Pence would continue serving as acting president.

Impeachment is a two-part process: First, the House votes on whether to impeach — the equivalent of indicting someone in a criminal case. If a simple majority of the House votes in favor of pressing charges, the Senate must promptly consider them at a trial.

In the Senate, the threshold for conviction is much higher. Two-thirds of the senators seated at any given moment must agree to convict. If all 100 senators were seated at the time of trial, 17 Republicans would have to join Democrats to obtain a conviction — a high bar to clear.

While it may seem pointless to impeach a president just as he is about to leave office, if Mr. Trump were convicted, the Senate could vote to bar him from ever holding office again. Only a simple majority of senators would have to agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is contemplating another run for president in 2024. A ban would be an appealing prospect not just to Democrats but also to many Republicans who are eyeing their own runs.

Both processes were designed to be difficult, and therefore rare. While the 25th Amendment provides a speedy remedy if a president is, say, physically incapacitated, it is even more difficult to strip an unwilling president of power under the amendment than it is under the impeachment process. A president can be impeached by a simple majority in the House and removed from office by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Stripping a president of power under the 25th Amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

With Mr. Trump set to leave office on Jan. 20, one of the biggest political and logistical hurdles for impeachment is the calendar. Past presidential impeachments, including the one the House undertook in 2019, have been drawn-out affairs. But if Democrats and some Republicans are in agreement that they must act, they can move in a matter of days to draw up charges, introduce them and proceed directly to a debate and vote on the floor of the House.

History gives little guide on the question of whether a president can be impeached or convicted once he leaves office, but there is precedent for doing so in the case of other high government officers. In 1876, the House impeached President Ulysses S. Grant’s war secretary for graft, even after he resigned from his post; he was acquitted in the Senate.

For more details, read our full guides to impeachment and the 25th Amendment.

— Nicholas Fandos, Michael D. Shear and Lisa Lerer

By the numbers: 147

   

… That’s the number of Republicans who objected to the results of the election, after being evacuated from their chambers as a violent mob stormed the Capitol on Wednesday.

… Seriously

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Thanks for reading. On Politics is your guide to the political news cycle, delivering clarity from the chaos.

Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Friday, January 08, 2021

In Her Words: After the Storm

Author Seyward Darby unpacks the symbolism of a woman killed
A memorial to Ashli Babbitt outside the Capitol in Washington on Thursday. Ms. Babbitt was fatally shot by the police after she entered the Capitol with a mob of other President Trump supporters on Wednesday.Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Author Headshot

By Alisha Haridasani Gupta

Gender Reporter

“They will canonize her as someone who was merely standing up for her people, her country and her beliefs.”

— Seyward Darby, author of “Sisters in Hate: American Women on the Front Lines of White Nationalism,” referring to Ashli Babbitt

ADVERTISEMENT

On Wednesday, Ashli Babbitt, a relatively unknown, zealous supporter of President Trump became, in a matter of hours, a martyr-like figure for the far-right and white nationalist movements.

Ms. Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, was part of the violent mob that besieged the Capitol in Washington, unleashing chaos and panic that disrupted the formal certification of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. In a pair of videos from inside the building, Ms. Babbitt, clad in a Make America Great Again flag that she wore like a cape, is seen trying to climb over a barrier and barge into the Speaker’s Lobby — where members of Congress were sheltering. “Go! Go!” she shouts, and then two men hoist her up to the ledge of a broken window.

At that point, a plainclothes Capitol Police officer fatally shoots her. She falls to the ground and is carried out of the building, bleeding around her mouth and neck.

Online, Ms. Babbitt’s name quickly ricocheted across social media platforms and turned into a rallying cry for far-right groups that now hold her up as proof that they had been wronged.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Why don’t we know who shot and killed the unarmed young lady in the Capitol yet?” Buzz Patterson, a Republican congressional candidate from California, asked on Twitter. “Say her name,” he continued, appropriating a slogan used during the Black Lives Matter movement last summer against racial inequality.

The hashtag Justice For Ashli and related memes mushroomed on Parler, a social media site used by far-right groups, and other pro-Trump forums.

One meme on Parler shows a picture of the Senate back in session after the threat had been cleared with the caption: “No matter how evil you are, you’ll never be as evil as standing in the blood of a murdered patriot while voting to commit treason.”

The glorification of Ms. Babbitt, without mentioning that she had broken into federal property, isn’t surprising, said Seyward Darby, the author of “Sisters in Hate: American Women on the Front Lines of White Nationalism.”

A white woman — specifically a wounded or a dead white woman — is a symbol that white nationalists and the far right have frequently relied on in the past to justify their actions, Ms. Darby wrote in a recent Op-Ed essay for The Times. It has always been “a rallying cry for people to stand up and act to preserve their contorted notions of honor, liberty and purity.”

In Her Words spoke with Ms. Darby to dig deeper into the role women have played in far-right and white nationalist movements, and how Ms. Babbitt’s story may end up galvanizing far-right networks for years to come.

Give us some context: What role have women traditionally played in white nationalist and far-right movements?

Let’s start with the Ku Klux Klan. In the late teens — around 1915 — a few people helped to revive the Klan, including a man and a woman who ran essentially a P.R. agency in Georgia. That woman, Elizabeth Tyler, was one of the most instrumental propagandists at the time, and she helped promote the idea of starting a women’s K.K.K. By the mid 1920s, the W.K.K.K. was its own, very powerful entity headquartered in Arkansas with branches all over the country. They did a lot of recruiting, they registered voters, they’d watch one another’s children so that they could cast ballots. But most important, they brought a sheen to this organization to make it look more dignified. The “we’re just concerned citizens” card, if you will.

Fast forward to today, and the roles women of the far right play are more or less the same. They’re communicators and organizers and they’re there to put a soft face on the movement.

You have to remember the far right is a hyper-misogynistic space. But it’s not that they don’t care about women at all. They do — they care about them in both a practical and symbolic sense. And a lot of women in the movement buy into the misogyny, see it as being in their personal interest, because of the protection, privilege and value it provides them.

In a recent Op-Ed for The Times, you wrote that “a dead or injured white woman … has always been a powerful symbol on the far right.” Explain.

Going back to the initial version of the K.K.K., after the Civil War, the whole idea was that the Klan were “chivalrous.” They were there to protect and preserve the honor and purity of their women. You certainly saw so many lynchings justified because of reports — most of them false — of sexual violence against white women. You saw that manifest in the movie “Birth of a Nation,” and then you saw it just repeat itself over time in the language and iconography of various groups.

There are a couple of different reasons for that. One is just this appeal to white masculinity. And two, there’s the idea that a woman is like the embodiment of nation; a woman is the keeper of home and history, but she’s also the vessel for the future of the race, literally. So a woman then becomes a highly politicized and sexualized symbol in this space.

Female members of the new Dixie Protestant Women’s Political League, an order closely modeled after the Ku Klux Klan, in Atlanta, GA. in 1922.George Rinhart/Corbis, via Getty Images

What about women who are on the frontlines of the movement, doing the fighting themselves? What should we make of them?

That’s where it gets a little more complicated. The general thinking in this movement has always been that, in an ideal situation, women wouldn’t have to be on the frontlines of anything. But because we’re in this so-called apocalyptic state — if you are a person that believes the far-right ideology, everything is apocalyptic at all times, by the way — it’s kind of like all hands on deck: People need to take risks, women need to step up and be soldiers because so much is at stake.

And then a woman being killed — I have to reiterate here that she [Ashli Babbitt] shouldn’t have been killed, but that aside — her dying sets her up to be a martyr for the movement. Probably the most well-known example of this is Vicki Weaver.

Remind us who she was.

The Weaver family were white separatists who lived in Idaho and, in 1992, the dad, Randy, was wanted on a weapons charge but didn’t appear in court. So, federal agents showed up to surveil the property, now known as Ruby Ridge, and that led to a shootout. The Weavers’ son was killed. Then the next day, the mom — Vicki — was shot and killed.

In my book, I quote a far-right pastor who said, at the time, that when the federal government shot this woman, they were waging war “against the American woman, the American mother, the American white wife,” and he said it was the start of a revolution.

Ashli Babbit is in the second row, fourth from left.113th Wing DC National Air Guard, via Facebook

She became a kind of rallying cry.

Exactly. Now when people think about Ruby Ridge, they don’t even think of Vicki’s name per se, they think, “Oh, that situation where the government was dealing with the separatists and they shot and killed a woman.” That’s what it gets boiled down to, and any normal person would hear that and think, “Oh, wow, that’s a really terrible thing.”

But it obviously strips important context. As I understand it, from my research, Vicki Weaver wasn’t a bystander. But the symbol gets simplified to just the blunt aspects of it.

We just don’t pay enough attention to the way an event like that ramifies through these networks of people who are skeptical of the government or are part of white supremacist groups.

And I think that we very well might see something similar happening here, with Ashli Babbitt. The symbolism of her death, I think, will have so many layers. They will canonize her as someone who was merely standing up for her people, her country and her beliefs.

What else is happening

Here are four articles from The Times you may have missed.

He Qian was an intern at a Chinese magazine in 2009 when, she says, she was sexually assaulted by a well-known colleague.Chona Kasinger for The New York Times
  • “This is only the beginning and far from enough.” He Qian, a former journalist in China, came forward more than two years ago with accusations of sexual assault against a well-known reporter. But she is being punished for it, highlighting the legal hurdles for women in China who make accusations of sexual harassment and assault against prominent men. [Read the story]
  • “People are fed up with sperm banks.” Many people want a pandemic baby, but some sperm banks are running low. So women are joining unregulated Facebook groups to find willing donors, no middleman required. [Read the story]
  • “Hateful, hurtful and untrue.” A “hateful" tweet about Stacey Abrams cost a university football coach his job. [Read the story]
  • “I yearn to explore again.” The Times asked readers to share global destinations that have delighted, inspired and comforted them. Their suggestions remind us that the world still awaits. [Read the story]

In Her Words is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta and edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Sandra Stevenson.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. Write to us at inherwords@nytimes.com. Follow us on Instagram at @nytgender.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for In Her Words from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

instagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018