July 6, 2021

Not All The Insurrectionists Were Tourists... Some of Them Worked There

So the line of defense referenced in the tweet might sound familiar, as it's been used by Trump and the Department of Justice both under his crony and his crony's successor as a defense in his own civil legal troubles.

In Trump's case, it reads as an extension of the general Nixonian conceit of "if the president does it, it's not illegal", or Trump's own basic operating principle that if he gets away with something then it's obviously okay, along with the self-fulfilling corrolary that if it's obviously okay then it's wrong to try to stop him from getting away with it.

It's easy to say that Brooks is just following his leader's example or that his legal team is just throwing all the noodles in the pot against the fridge to see what sticks.

But I would posit that there's something more at play here, something worth noting, and you'll find it in the obvious rebuttal: how can it be part of Mo Brooks's government job to advocate for the overthrow of the government?

And the answer to that question is: he was only trying to tear down the parts of the government that aren't him, him and his side. If he understands his job as taking and holding (and above all, keeping) power as a Republican, then yes, he was doing his job.

That's the thing we have to understand about the modern Republican Party:they see job one for any politician as keeping a stranglehold on a nation in which they are a shrinking minority and their actual policy positions are even less popular than they are.

With that in mind, it's impossible to see an attempt to inflame a violent insurrection against democratic representation as anything but Mo Brooks being a Republican congressional representative to the best of his ability.

Note that this sardonic commentary on the underlying dynamics is not a legal or moral analysis of the merits of his defense, much less an analysis in support of it.

While I'm not qualified to analyze it legally. As an argument goes, I have to say it sucks Play-Doh star noodles backwards into the folding Fun Factory. It's logical if you start with some very poisoned premises.

Ultimately, I doubt Brooks has even bothered to circle the block on the reasoning behind it. He would not consciously argue that trying to get the opposition (for a treacherously broad definition thereof) killed and an election overturned is his job, if only because that gives away the game -- not that such is necessarily a strong concern for the GOP these days -- but also because it's not necessary.

Because if your core belief is that you must hold all the power and none of the accountability, anything that works for holding power and evading accountability is right, and anything that might work, might be worth trying.

Donald Trump did not impose this philosophy on the party, though he certainly accelerated it in terms of the extremes they are willing to go to and the illusions they are willing to go without.

This likewise did not start and will not end with Brooks, but if he finds any success with this tactic, I expect to see ripple effects both in the range of things that elected GOP officials will do and the frequency with which they evoke this kind of ultimate privilege.