GOP committees elevate pardoned Capitol rioters as fundraising draws, rewriting a violent riot as peaceful protest while obscuring accountability and eroding their own 'law and order' message.
To the degree that the coup could not be advanced by the insurrection that day, the question is left open as to whether there was an insurrection, at all (as you note). However, just as there is a difference between a battle and a war, now that the coup is much closer to complete, the answer to the prior question is clear--it was NOT an insurrection. It was a harbinger of the new law and order. That old one rested on citizen juries and institutions, whereas this new one runs around who you know. Those folks on January 6 know a guy, so it's all okay.
Important framing here—but let’s not mistake this for just a PR revision or base pandering.
What we’re watching is narrative infrastructure being laid—purposefully. If January 6 can be recast as 'peaceful protest', not riot (or even insurrection), then future disruptions can be framed as patriotic interventions before they even occur.
We aren't witnessing a branding problem; it’s a strategic repositioning of violence as legitimate political expression when it serves the purpose of the power-hungry party.
The contradiction in “law and order” isn’t just hypocrisy—it’s a selective standard: law applies when it disciplines the other side; it gets waived when loyalty’s involved. Look at how willingly POTUS '45-47' turns on his supporters when they voice dissent. This isn't a policy position; it’s institutional corrosion in real time.
What concerns me most isn’t just the rhetoric, it’s the scaffolding being built to make future accountability impossible. Once you start elevating convicted rioters as truth-tellers and leveraging them for fundraising, you're not rewriting history. You're writing permission slips.
Excellent point. We can see the same thing happening in the Epstein files embarrassment. Rather than coming clean, saying that they were wrong all along, they're digging in to avoid accountability to the people whom they empowered with this conspiracy theory.
To the degree that the coup could not be advanced by the insurrection that day, the question is left open as to whether there was an insurrection, at all (as you note). However, just as there is a difference between a battle and a war, now that the coup is much closer to complete, the answer to the prior question is clear--it was NOT an insurrection. It was a harbinger of the new law and order. That old one rested on citizen juries and institutions, whereas this new one runs around who you know. Those folks on January 6 know a guy, so it's all okay.
Important framing here—but let’s not mistake this for just a PR revision or base pandering.
What we’re watching is narrative infrastructure being laid—purposefully. If January 6 can be recast as 'peaceful protest', not riot (or even insurrection), then future disruptions can be framed as patriotic interventions before they even occur.
We aren't witnessing a branding problem; it’s a strategic repositioning of violence as legitimate political expression when it serves the purpose of the power-hungry party.
The contradiction in “law and order” isn’t just hypocrisy—it’s a selective standard: law applies when it disciplines the other side; it gets waived when loyalty’s involved. Look at how willingly POTUS '45-47' turns on his supporters when they voice dissent. This isn't a policy position; it’s institutional corrosion in real time.
What concerns me most isn’t just the rhetoric, it’s the scaffolding being built to make future accountability impossible. Once you start elevating convicted rioters as truth-tellers and leveraging them for fundraising, you're not rewriting history. You're writing permission slips.
Excellent point. We can see the same thing happening in the Epstein files embarrassment. Rather than coming clean, saying that they were wrong all along, they're digging in to avoid accountability to the people whom they empowered with this conspiracy theory.