Insurrection: Participation by Police and Military

 The participation of police officers and active duty military personnel in the insurrection of January 6 is not entirely surprising, given what we already knew about the presence of racist, white supremacist, and pro-trump elements among their ranks. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem. People sworn to protect and defend the Constitution took it upon themselves to decide that the duly consituted legislative branch of the United States government was a "domestic enemy" of the government and that it was their right and duty to attempt to overthrow it by force and violence. They had no orders coming through their chain of command. They had only their personal belief. How did it come about, and how can it be prevented in the future? It seems to me that a large part of the problem may be a lack of education in civics. I could be wrong, but my impression is that most American schoolchildren do not receive the kind of education in civics which was commonplace sixty years ago. From the early years, they learned, in progressively growing detail, that America was founded on principles of God-given universal human rights, that our system of governments, federal and state, was designed to protect those rights by limiting governmental power and distributing it among different levels and institutions. Nevertheless, each element of government was authoritative within its own sphere. Our Constitution was studied as a work of genius, bakancing various interests in light of a keen awareness of human propensities to evil. In high school, the education was capped with a course specifically in American government, which presented the design and function of our constitutional system in detail. Such an education should prevent all but the most gullible from going rogue as far too many of our men and women in uniform seem to have done. Recently we have seen the 1619 Project proclaiming to all and sundry that racism and white supremacy are what it means to be an American — precisely what many of the insurrectionists seem to believe. I disaagree with that view of America. I say that America as a nation has always embraced the principles of the Declaration of Independence, even when we have failed to live up to them, when some Americans ignored or denied them, when others compromised them. I do not want future police officers and soldiers to be taught from their earliest days in school that America means white supremacy. We must overcome the deep mistrust of our system of government which allowed insurrection to flourish among people who were sworn to defend the Constitution but clearly did not understand what that oath meant. Certainly, the military and the police do not lose their right to have an opinion about what is best for our country and to vote for the candidates of their choice, but no citizen has the right to resort to force and violence to attempt to impose their opinion, much less one who has taken an direct oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Of course, a proper education in American history and civics is essential for the entire population.

Libertarians on Twitter

Someone tweeted to the effect that government protection of public safety is tyranny. I responded, initiating a couple of days of sporadic back-and-forths with tweeters who called themselves libertarians. The context was the defiance of restrictions on public gatherings, which was happening in various ways in California, Texas, and Michigan.

First, I mentioned that promoting safety is an object for which the Declaration of Independence (=Thomas Jefferson) says people organize their governments. Tweeter said it wasn't in the Declaration, so I gave him the link and told him where to find it. Properly chastened, he noted that it isn't law. So I gave him law. Multiple quotes from the Massachusetts Constitution (drafted by John Adams). My point, of course, was that protection of public safety was clearly part of the police powers of government according to the political philosophy of the founders and the form of government they established.

At this point others joined in. State law didn't matter. States couldn't ignore the Constitution. They seemed to think that States' powers are granted by the Constitution (or at least to be found in federal statute). So I pointed out that the federal government didn't create the States or give them their powers. States already existed and had their powers before the Constitution was adopted. But they reminded me that the States were bound by the First and Second Amendments. I noted offhand that it was a Supreme Court interpretation, not an explicit text, which found that those Amendments applied to the States.

Someone suggested that I didn't know the purpose of the Second Amendment, so I quoted its opening words, "A well regulated Militia." Apparently some tweeters don't believe what the Constitution says, because they continued to "like" the tweet that said I didn't know the purpose of the Amendment. Here we encounter the belief — never expressed directly but apparently behind their viewpoint — that the right to bear arms was intended to enable the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Actually, as I learned by looking more closely at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, one of Congress's powers is to call forth the Militia, organized by the States, to "suppress insurrection." The discussion petered out after I called that to their attention.

Meanwhile, though, there were some further tweets from me about the difference between poor judgment in the exercise of lawful powers, and tyranny; about the availability of remedies other than insurrection, such as court cases and elections; about the difference between their ideology verging on anarchism and the founders' belief in government providing for ordered liberty. Early on, I told two of them, "I'll take Jefferson and Adams over you any day of the week and twice on Sunday."

Somebody said he had never consented to the Constitution. To which the basic answer is, if you don't like it you're free to leave, but if you don't leave, you have no right to overthrow what the rest of us consent to.

There was also the person who complained that he needed to be free to earn a living to support his family. First I mentioned the bailouts enacted by Congress. I could also have mentioned unemployment insurance and food pantries. I.e., there is no need for his family to starve. But instead, I went full on sarcastic and reminded him that for decades people have been saying you need to prepare to survive on your own. If he's still unprepared to go into the forest and shoot a deer, he has been pathetically irresponsible.

At the end a tweeter from California "followed" me. I checked out his tweets and found him pretty balanced, so I decided to follow back. I also commented that unfortunately "nobody" understands or cares about Federalism, limited government, or separation of powers any more; and the gun nuts only know one word of the First Amendment, "assemble" and two words of the Second, "bear arms."