For many Americans, the events of January 6th will serve as a reminder of democracy’s darkest days. When verbal assaults on America’s democratic system turned physical, it marked a significant political turning point and exposed fractures in the current system.
Created for the purpose of democratic accountability, the January 6th commission is a prime example of the U.S.’s limited attempts at preserving its democratic institutions. Unfortunately, there are many strong forces working to subvert American democracy and avoid accountability at all costs. So far, the Committee’s real success has been exposing the true state of American democracy: for every step toward democratic accountability, democracy takes two steps back.
January 6th Committee
The committee’s own creation serves as an example of this democratic paradox. Attempting to enforce a semblance of horizontal accountability, mostly democratic members of the House sought to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the attack. Foreshadowing the partisan divides to come, this move was blocked by Republican Senators and a less bipartisan select committee was established by a party-line vote instead. U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is comprised of 7 Democrats and only 2 Republican Representatives.
The creation of a January 6th committee should have been a strong showing of democratic loyalty; instead, it turned into another instance of partisan political games. The overall lack of consensus surrounding the need for an investigation invalidates any work the committee may achieve. Regardless of its findings, those in power will not take subsequent action on the issues brought forth by the committee. Going into an investigation with this political attitude sets the committee up for failure.
Members of the commission have described their investigation as three rings of inquiry focused on the motivations and influences of the protestors turned rioters; the involvement of right-wing paramilitary, militia, and nationalist groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys; and the involvement of those attempting to overturn the election results in Trump’s inner circle. The commission is currently deep within the third ring of investigation and has begun subpoenas and requests for records. In the committee’s investigation, we are witnessing another instance of the “one forward, two back” mentality in Donald Trump’s executive privilege defense.
The Executive Privilege Defense
In August, the Committee submitted a request for over 50 from the Trump White House. The former President evoked his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch to declare these documents privileged, thus preventing their public release. However, this unwritten expansion of executive powers was blocked by the current administration, who is responsible for determining what exactly falls under executive privilege jurisdiction. In a major step forward, the Biden White House informed the National Archives that it would not assert executive privilege for the batch of documents requested by the House Committee. Statements made by the administration reasserted their commitment to the preservation of Democracy and demonstrated a clear departure from the prior administration’s philosophy on government transparency.
Of course, this step forward was followed by two steps backward. Shortly after Biden’s decision, Trump filed a federal lawsuit challenging not only the document request but the Jan. 6th investigation as a whole. Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s request for an immediate injunction and emphasized Congress’s legitimate interest in obtaining these documents. Chutkan also rejected Trump’s executive privilege claims, stating “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” While this accountability is vital to preserving the health of Democracy, the process to reach this verdict exposes the blatant weaknesses in the democratic system and opens them up for exploitation in the future.
Days later, Trump filed another lawsuit attempting to block the Committee’s request for call logs, draft speeches, and other executive branch communications from Mark Meadows and Kayleigh McEnany. In response to this lawsuit, the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has delayed the Jan. 6th commissions access to Trump’s records as they wait to hear arguments on Nov. 30th.
Paradox of Democracy
As the January 6th commission looks to complete a timely and thorough investigation, delays like this hurt America’s democratic process. Trump’s legal moves highlight the paradox of American democratic accountability: the system can try and hold you accountable, but you can also hijack the system.
The phenomenon can also be witnessed in the Steve Bannon case. While the system found a way to hold Bannon accountable by charging him with contempt of Congress, he found a way to successfully hijack the democratic system, slow down the investigation, and publicly criticize the committee’s legitimacy. One step forward, two steps back.
At its core, the January 6th commission embodies the democratic nation that America aspires to be: one of accountability, systematic order, and justice. However, reality seldom reflects one’s aspirations. Instead, the January 6th committee has revealed the democratic nation that America really is: one of partisanship, sensationalism, and inconsistencies.
Hi Mikeala!
I really liked how well you tied in the title/theme of your post, one step forward, two steps back, into every aspect of the post. Your concluding remarks made me think further about the difference between the structure of our government and the way that it actually functions depending on who is in power and how they manipulate whatever process they engage in. I think that there are some government institutions that are inherently democratic, but they are misused, such as the January 6th Committee. I also think there are others that are inherently undemocratic, like the electoral college, that we continue to use. It can be difficult to decide exactly how these institutions are supposed to be used. The constitution seems to have some answers, but even the constitution has flaws. On a final note, I especially appreciated your style of writing and the grammatical cleanliness of this post!
Hi Mikaela! I really enjoyed reading your blog post. The way you formatted it and incorporated the “one step forward, two steps back” theme in every section was awesome. The information flowed nicely and I really liked your insight on this issue. I couldn’t agree with you more that the January 6th commission has become a political issue. I would go even further to argue that it has become its own separate political issue from the actual events that occurred on January 6th. Sometimes it feels like our legislators don’t fully care about what happened on that day and are more concerned with how this commission will effect their political party and position as a legislator. I find this to be especially frustrating when their reason for opposing the commission is in the name of “democracy” or the country. Undermining the commission and the investigation is a threat to our democracy and our country. Should this continue, I would expect to see similar situations arise in the near future. Do you think that the behaviors surrounding the investigation could set a precedent for the future? Should the United States expect to see even more heinous acts from the legislators that we elected or is this a unique situation?
In weeks ten and eleven of the course, we talked a lot about the January 6th attacks and polarization. We discussed how small incidents of democratic erosion are microcosms of the bigger picture. You touched on that in the end of the post and I fully agree that sentiments versus the reality of the January 6th commission is a microcosm of American democracy. In the conversation we had in class, I brought up the fact that midterm elections are only a year away. How do you think the commission will effect the midterm elections? I am curious to know in which medium will we see this effect. It could mean a political party loses/gains seats in Congress, it could mean that close elections and vote recounts are going to be undermined, or it could mean outrage on social media. In which way do you think we’ll see the impact that the commission has made?
I really appreciate that you included the Steve Bannon case. As a country, we need to realize that the paradox of January 6th is an accurate representation of our country. This wasn’t an “out of the blue” moment, it was a result of our slightly twisted democracy. The Steve Bannon case just further proves that. This was another moment where the right thing was intended, but the result revealed democratic weaknesses.
I really enjoyed your commentary on the January 6th Committee. I think your criticism of the efforts Donald Trump is making to be legitimate and valid. However, I do not think the gridlock is an indictment of “American democratic accountability.” American democratic accountability elected Joe Biden in 2020. What happened afterwards; when Donald Trump lied about a stolen election, and when Donald Trump convened thousands of people at the Capitol on January 6th, and now, when he and his minions are evading justice; is not an indictment of “American democratic accountability”, but it is exclusively an indictment of Donald Trump as an individual. “American democratic accountability” ran its course in the 2020 Election. Since then, Donald Trump has done everything he possibly could to ruin it for everyone else, he deserves all of the blame, not America.
How do you think the rest of the investigation will pan out?