A Most Tyrannical Moment
We’re dealing with a regime bent on securing total control of state and society, while claiming to do so in defense of democracy and freedom.
Yesterday evening, President Joe Biden delivered a prime-time address citing the threat to American democracy by MAGA Republicans and former President Donald Trump. For those of you who missed the speech, here are the highlights. Watch and draw your own conclusions, then read on to hear my thoughts.
The backdrop of the speech, which you can read in its entirety here, received a tremendous amount of attention. The blood-red lighting behind Biden, combined with the two Marines flanking him in the background (more on that later) added to an image so threatening and unnerving, measures were taken in real time to make the appearance a little less intimidating:
As for the speech itself, it seemed innocuous on its face. There were no blatant threats, no calls to arms, and there were appeals to unity. However, when listened to in context, the speech has a very different complexion. The singling out of “MAGA Republicans” is a very clear line drawn in the sand: over 74 million Americans - 47% of voters - selected Trump in the 2020 election. While not every Trump voter supports every aspect of the MAGA movement nor everything Trump has done and said, the fact is, they identify more with the MAGA movement than they do with what the Democratic Party and Joe Biden has to offer. Despite Biden’s attempts to cast MAGA as a minority movement, the fact is, Biden is casting a very wide net and implicating anyone opposing his political agenda. Using the speech to cite his administration’s supposed accomplishments is Biden saying, “Look at all we’re doing for you, why aren’t you on our side???”
If you don’t agree with Biden, don’t support his agenda, and would prefer he goes away, what does that make you, in his eyes?
But what stood out to me most during the speech was his use of the military. Note the two Marines who stood in the background during the entire address and the use of the military band during the opening. Again, there’s nothing unusual in it of itself, as the most national of institutions often participate in events centering on the commander-in-chief. However, this was a deeply partisan and political speech, one where Biden not only attacked the political opposition, but also put over his administration and his party.
I’m old enough to remember how sensitive the media and scholarly-types were towards Trump’s use of the military as “props” for his grandstanding. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley chose to apologize for walking alongside the then-commander-in-chief to a walk to St. John’s Episcopal Church from the White House, which had been burned during the 2020 George Floyd protests. While there may have been partisan political aspects to what Trump said, consider once more the context: the most serious wave of civil unrest in American history in half a century. The idea that the nation’s top military officer standing by his commander-in-chief in a time of national crisis was something he should’ve refused to do defies common sense. Whether Trump conducted himself properly in that situation is another matter entirely.
As of this writing, Milley has said nothing about Biden’s use of the military as a prop in last night’s speech. I wouldn’t bet on it, either.
However, the buck stops with the commander-in-chief and Biden deserves serious condemnation for last night’s display. In August 2020, the current president criticized Trump for politicizing the military and promised he would never do such a thing once elected. Addressing a military audience [bold mine]:
“It’s been tested lately, but I promise you, as president, I’ll never put you in the middle of politics or personal vendettas,” the former vice president. "I’ll never use the military as a prop or as a private militia to violate rights of fellow citizens. That’s not law and order.”
The remarks were as dishonest then as they are today. Not only has Biden crossed the line into using the military as a prop, there’s scant evidence Trump sought to violate the rights of Americans using the military during his term. What his many critics seem to point to was Trump’s “threat” to deploy active-duty troops to the streets to quell the violence and restore order during that hot summer of 2020. The following is typical of “expert” and media commentary on those unnerving days:
When presented with a situation where violence against protesters was more likely, should U.S. military leaders have reacted similarly? Like Piñera, Trump used bellicose language when describing demonstrators as “thugs” and “terrorists,” rhetoric that could have emboldened soldiers to justify and use violence. The president warned the governor of Minnesota that if he could not restore order the military would, adding, “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Active-duty officers should have pushed back against Trump’s rhetoric but did not. Instead, Milley remained silent. It took him 10 days to apologize for appearing in uniform next to the president in Lafayette Park. Furthermore, Milley declined to testify in front of Congress, the only other civilian institution that could have checked executive abuse. His apology was welcome, but came too late and, more importantly, his initial silence suggested complicity.
However, when clicking on the hyperlink provided by the authors, it becomes undeniably clear who Trump was referring to regarding “‘thugs’ and ‘terrorists.’” Hint: they’re not the peaceful protesters:
President Donald Trump on Thursday promised “retribution” against protesters nationwide who tore down statues and referred to Wisconsin demonstrators as “terrorists.”
“Every night, we’re going to get tougher and tougher,” Trump said at a Fox News town hall in Wisconsin on Thursday night, in response to an audience question about his plan to tamp down protests there. “And at some point, there’s going to be retribution because there has to be. These people are vandals, but they’re agitators, but they’re really — they’re terrorists, in a sense.”
It’s unclear what the president meant by “retribution,” but Trump earlier in the town hall called for prison time for protesters who tear down monuments. And in a Tuesday tweet, Trump promised 10 years in jail for “anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such federal property,” citing the 2003 Veterans’ Memorial Preservation Act.
And:
“I can understand certain things being taken down, but they ought to go through a process legally,” Trump said Thursday.
In late May, Trump seemingly urged the shooting of looters in Minneapolis amid protests over the death of George Floyd. Trump has repeatedly called for “law and order” as protests continued throughout June.
The idea that vandals and looters are merely “demonstrators” or that threatening violence against lawbreakers is somehow over the line suggests these people are either entirely partisan political actors or, worse, in alignment with the forces of national disintegration. Compare this to their incessant panicked rhetoric over the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol protest, which resulted in far less damage and the death of only one person, a protester, or Biden’s recent comments towards gun-owning Americans who view the government as threatening to them:
Biden has never used such rhetoric against criminals committing assaults, murders, and smash-and-grab robberies across the country and terrorizing Asian-American residents in the San Francisco Bay Area. It’s apparent at this point who Biden sees as defensible and indefensible in this country. With a president who so eagerly antagonizes Americans like none before him, who needs enemies?
If Trump or a Republican president used similar rhetoric against actual lawbreakers, they would’ve been roundly condemned. Again, as of this writing, not a single civil-military expert has voiced concerns over Biden using the military as a prop in last night’s speech, nor his rhetoric. It shows you how much faith anyone ought to be placing in “experts” these days when they provide cover for blatantly authoritarian conduct.
That said, at least two media figures found Biden’s use of the military problematic. These individuals are among Biden’s strongest supporters, so this ought to convince the unconvinced of how inappropriate the display was:
To echo Brianna Keiler, if it was wrong when Trump did it, it’s wrong when Biden does it, especially since Biden claimed to be everything Trump wasn’t. If you’re the type who found it easy to criticize Trump, yet feel apprehensive about criticizing Biden, understand that this ultimately goes beyond either man. We’re dealing with a regime bent on securing total control of state and society, while claiming to do so in defense of democracy and freedom. In response, a counter-revolution has emerged in “MAGA,” the threat Biden sells as existential to the U.S. Eric Weinstein lays out the players in America’s cold civil war well:
Some people may bristle at the suggestion of a “MAGAstan” and it posing a threat to the American republic, but point is that the country is currently a battlefield between a kleptocratic regime (led by Biden) largely in league with a revolutionary movement (“Wokestan”) and opposed by counter-revolutionary MAGAstan. Such a conflict isn’t good for democracy nor freedom, yet anyone who shares Biden’s view that MAGA is a threat to the country needs to understand it’s a reaction to the Biden-led kleptocracy and the Woke movement threatening to tear the country apart. In his speech last night, Biden drew a line between the kleptocracy/Wokestan and MAGAstan, once and for all leaving no question which side of the line Biden places himself. Some uniter.
Where do we go from here? I keep thinking back to how tranquil life in Northern Ireland seemed in 1966, before a series of homicides that summer led to mass civil unrest and troops patrolling the streets three years later. With last night’s drawing of a line in the sand by our president, are we on a glide-path to a similar outcome? I sincerely hope Biden’s words fall on deaf ears, but the rhetoric has become so incessant and unyielding, I can’t imagine how it doesn’t lead to a tragic destination.
I’ll leave you with one more of Weinstein’s thoughts, as they echo mine:
UPDATE: Perhaps sensitive to the implications of his speech, Biden appears to soften his remarks, claiming they were about the politicians, not the people:
This is sure to disappoint those on the Left who thought Trump supporters constitute a terrorist insurgency akin to the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!