Joe Biden’s Jan 6 speech raises some interesting problems. What does he really want to achieve by declaring his foes outlaws? Even if he succeeds in jailing, disqualifying or otherwise delegitimizing his 2024 political opponents, the challenge to “our democracy” he posits will not go away for two reasons. First, the crisis facing the status quo does not arise from one man, Donald Trump, but from the failure of the establishment to deliver across a wide range of issues. Second, the discontent of which Trump is a figurehead now includes significant parts of the electorate and has political strongholds in a number of states.
This means the “insurrection” that Biden wants to stop cannot be decapitated by simply jailing one man because it does not arise from one man nor inhere in a single individual. Any realistic preemptive strike against the rebels must be broader in extent than any process the justice and police system has contemplated so far. If Joe wants to use force he will have to brandish a much bigger gun than heretofore with all the danger of escalation that entails.
The one instrument commensurate to the task of forever destroying the challenge represented by Donald Trump is the political process. A clear, resounding electoral defeat in 2024 would consign DJT to the dustbin of history and endorse Joe Biden and his policies. Yet ironically, by doing everything to ensure his opponents cannot run against him, Biden is disabling the one tool that can resolve the challenge democratically and peacefully. If the Democrats win the match next year by default it can only guarantee the insurrection, rather than fading, will continue.
How does one explain the paradox of Biden destroying his one sure means of victory and opting for a course that will probably lead to prolonged and indecisive conflict? The obvious explanation is to observe that is what he always does. He seems to prefer stalemates and chaos over clearcut solution. Why does he frequently do this? The answer is simple. It creates opportunities that would not exist in a clear cut situation. Turning 2024 into neither and yet both a regular election and insurrection would knock a lot of power loose for the grabs and this is perhaps the point.
Recent political developments become less confusing when we relax the assumption that events are ultimately about America. Ambiguity is the enemy of constitutional democracy, but confusion is the friend of operators and dealers. Perhaps the correct paradigm is not to judge events through the prism of national interest but by the criteria of factional gain. Then a third possibility emerges: maybe 2024 is not about “democracy” or “elections” but a political bank robbery in progress.
Someone once observed: never let a crisis go to waste. When the populist insurrection first emerged, the first thought in many minds was not, as they would have you believe: is this good or bad? It was: what’s the opportunity here?