Wannabe stormtroopers: White men with guns in Trump’s America are assaulting 'the sanctity of representative democracy'
During the two most successful American protest movements in my lifetime, you never saw a demonstrator carrying a gun. The civil rights marches and anti-Vietnam sit-ins employed political activism, songs, and signs to spread their messages. Even in the face of bigoted cops, vicious dogs, and weaponized firehoses, the non-violent tactics worked.
The Vietnam War ended largely because of the unrelenting protests on college campuses, in the streets of Washington, DC, and all across America. Folk ballads and leaflets were the weapons of choice. The only guns used were the ones callously fired by the Ohio National Guard against peaceful anti-war kids at Kent State University.
The incredible advances made in the civil rights era came not from military-style tactics by gun-toting Black militias but from the courageous and dignified men and women of color like the late John Lewis and Rosa Parks, who sat holding only her purse on a segregated Alabama bus.
Conversely, the protests this spring to reopen Michigan, Oregon, and elsewhere during the coronavirus pandemic were some of the most disturbing scenes I’ve witnessed in recent history.
As MSNBC commentator Steve Schmidt tweeted, “Let’s be clear about something. Camo-clad paramilitary fetishists festooned in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles storming our state capitols while ‘protesting’ is obscene. It is an assault on the sanctity of representative democracy and our American system.”
Wannabe Stormtroopers
Things have only deteriorated since Schmidt’s tweet. Wannabe stormtroopers are front and center during the recent protests against racial injustice and police brutality in Portland, where long rifle-toting right-wing militias have clashed with demonstrators.
Their objective is clearly transparent: to ignite a civil war along the red versus blue political battle lines that President Donald Trump has so blatantly encouraged. His goal is to stoke enough fear among undecided swing voters to win another term this November.
Guns have also surfaced most horribly, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where a 17-year-old white Trump supporter from Illinois, Kyle Rittenhouse, allegedly murdered two innocent protestors with a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle, a gun he had no legal right to own.
Rittenhouse has since become a cause célèbre among the most virulent of the right-wing echo chamber, being reinvented as a courageous patriot that traveled to Wisconsin to protect the city from the demonstrators.
While Kyle Rittenhouse is rotting in jail under $2 Million bond for shooting in self-defense, Gaige Grosskreutz--th… https://t.co/q43lDWCdDG— Sam Parker 🇺🇲 (@Sam Parker 🇺🇲) 1599416722
President Trump, never one to miss a moment to cleave Americans further apart, defended the arrested murderer, “They very violently attacked him…I guess he was in very big trouble, he probably would have been killed.”
Trump did not clarify who “they” was, but his implication was that they deserved to be slaughtered. No doubt a presidential pardon is in the offing and perhaps an appearance at a Trump campaign rally. After all, this is the year 2020.
Trump’s Rethoric
Also worth noting is the shift in Trump’s rhetoric. In the aftermath of the 2017 Charlottesville white power rally, when tiki-carrying racists chanted, “Jews will not replace us!” Trump employed a moral equivalency between the neo-Nazis and the counter-demonstrators. He said there were “very fine people on both sides.”
Today, however, he never misses a moment to label racial justice demonstrators as “thugs” and that the Black Lives Matter supporters as part of a “Marxist organization.” Very fine people now only exist if they support Trump’s dystopian vision.
I admit I’ve been naïve. I had no idea about the assortment of military-style assault weapons Americans are allowed to legally own and openly carry. I can imagine Vietnam veterans wishing they had possessed those same long guns when they were splashing through a soggy rice field with an M-16 that often jammed during battle and consequently being slaughtered like so much cannon fodder.
Now guns are all the rage among Trump supporters to protest, among other things, mandates requiring Americans to wear masks, or people of color demanding equal treatment from law enforcement and justice from the courts.
No governor or mayor has ever suggested suspending the 2nd Amendment, confiscating guns, or imposing martial law. Yet, in March, more guns were bought in the United States than ever before: around two million, roughly, sadly, the same amount as were purchased in the wake of the Sandy Hook murders and President Barack Obama’s re-election in 2008.
Fuming Macho Men
What gives? Was the initial toilet paper shortage the “trigger” that led these GI Joe wannabes to rush out to their neighborhood gun store and grab the latest AR-15? Is it the fear that people of color will finally get justice instead of bullets that brings out the macho men? Is it this kind of imagined domestic Armageddon exactly what these paranoid jack-booted men want?
Whatever legitimate complaints they have are overshadowed by the real threat of a mass shooting by one of their own. We know it only takes one Tim McVeigh nutcase to go off at one of these rallies.
Someone like Kyle Rittenhouse.
These fuming macho men decked out in Soldier of Fortune gear and red MAGA hats waving Confederate flags and “Don’t Tread on Me” banners seem just a hair’s breadth away from emptying the magazines on their AKs. I mean, why else do they own those guns if not to hunt humans?
Despite their fury, they appear well-fed with ample resources for brand new pickup trucks, expensive weapons, body armor, and ammo. The practical side of me would suggest to them that they should have saved the money they just spent in those gun stores for a tumultuous economic time like this one, but who dares argue with an angry male wielding a loaded gun?
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.
- Former FBI agent demolishes Fox News claim Boulder shooter’s gun wasn't 'a weapon of war' - Alternet.org ›
- Park Cannon's arrest sets Twitter ablaze as outraged voters blast Georgia law enforcement - Alternet.org ›
- Data leak exposes cops' donations to Kyle Rittenhouse following Kenosha shooting - Alternet.org ›
- White men—even Republican ones—are starting to sour on Trump - Alternet.org ›
- 'We are good Americans': Mother of alleged Michigan shooter wrote a letter praising Trump as a 2nd Amendment hero - Alternet.org ›
- Musician Jack White torches 'unchecked egomaniac' Trump for sending the country 'backwards 50 years' - Alternet.org ›
- Is Moral Clarity Possible in Donald Trump’s America? - Alternet.org ›
- College administrators are falling into a tried and true trap laid by the right wing - Alternet.org ›
- Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister pleads for $3000 to avoid eviction: 'Unimaginable hardship' - Alternet.org ›
- The dark secret behind Trump's support - Alternet.org ›
- The truth bomb too many Democrats need to hear - Alternet.org ›
- 'Boiling cauldron': Experts say CEO shooting exposes deep national rage over denied claims - Alternet.org ›
- Outrage as Republicans allude to shooting former Kansas Democratic rep - Alternet.org ›
- Trumpism echoes right-wing 'outlaw' Timothy McVeigh — 30 years after the OK bombing - Alternet.org ›
- 'It’s time': Conservative calls for 'comprehensive national civic uprising' against Trump - Alternet.org ›
- Inside Trump's 'assault on kids' - Alternet.org ›
A supreme folly
In 2008, on one of those magical summer evenings in New York City, when the streets buzzed with the hive of humanity in all of its colorful permutations, I attended the play Thurgood at Broadway’s Booth Theater.
This article originally appeared on the Globe Post.
The one-man performance featured Lawrence Fishburne as Thurgood Marshall, an esteemed civil rights lawyer, and later the first African American Supreme Court Justice, who served from 1967 until his retirement in 1991.
The play began with Fishburne portraying an elderly Marshall and then, over the incredible 90-minute performance, Fishburne deftly time travels his character backward to his earliest days that include his fabled stint as an anti-segregation lawyer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
It was in that role that Marshall was the lead counsel for the NAACP in the historic Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, litigated successfully before the Supreme Court in 1952 and later settled in 1954.
The case wiped out the previous ruling of the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896, also known as “separate but equal” segregationist policies that were anything but equal in quality for African Americans. This included water fountains, restrooms, restaurants, and schools, among so many other American facets of life that Whites took for granted, but were denied to African Americans.
Thanks to the 9-0 decision in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, in which the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for that, or any other, city to deny enrollment for black families that wished to attend the schools of their choice and not segregated facilities. The Court declared that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
That did not settle the matter then, of course, but the decision that Marshall litigated on behalf of the NAACP could be viewed as the beginning of the civil rights movement in America.
Jump ahead to 1991, when Marshall’s replacement Clarence Thomas was nominated despite disturbing claims of sexual harassment by the courageous law professor Anita Hill. The all-white, male Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by then-Senator Joe Biden, treated the former colleague of Thomas in an adversarial and disrespectful manner.
Thomas took a page from what could be labeled today as the Brett Kavanaugh playbook, using anger to dismiss Hill’s accusations and calling the entire hearing a “high-tech lynching… You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
His strategy, coupled with Biden’s tone-deaf chairmanship, worked and Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the Senate. (Biden, 28 years later (or too late), and shortly after announcing his 2020 presidential candidacy later apologized to Hill, who refused to accept Biden’s obvious politically orchestrated mea culpa.)
The confirmation of Thomas to a lifetime seat on the US Supreme Court was a mistake then and an even bigger misstep today. The rancid cloud of recent scandals surrounding Thomas and his wife Ginni would land the rest of us before a judge with the first whiff of financial shenanigans. But, unlike the nine justices, who apparently have zero oversight, we have to obey the laws.
We could not, for example, claim hundreds of thousands of rental income on our tax forms from a company that has not existed since 2006, as the Washington Post recently reported.
And, if we were somehow in charge of adjudicating cases such as Roe v. Wade without bias, would we not want to distance ourselves from taking freebee, luxury vacations on yachts and private jets, from billionaire, Nazi memorabilia-collecting, Republican megadonor such as Harlan Crow?
ProPublica, who broke the Thomas’ scandal story, wrote that the lavish gifts to the justice and his wife “have no known precedent in the modern history of the US Supreme Court.” And, it added, “These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures.”
Crow, as Politico reported, once donated $500,000 to a Tea Party outfit that Ginni Thomas founded. Perhaps some of that half million went to her annual $120,000 salary the Tea Party group paid her.
Wait, there’s more. Three houses owned by Thomas’ family members in Georgia were purchased by Crow, who has since sold two of the homes. Thomas failed to disclose the sales as required by law.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia are now urging Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate Thomas’ financial “lapses.”
The two members of Congress said, “There is at least reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas intentionally disregarded the disclosure requirement to report the sale of his interest in the Savannah properties in an attempt to hide the extent of his financial relationship with Crow.”
Will this happen, and will Thomas be required to return his “hospitality” gifts? Doubtful.
Thomas and his fellow Supremes are not elected. Unfortunately, neither are they term-limited. And, unlike his heroic predecessor Thurgood Marshall, Thomas only further erodes our trust in those whose legal decisions, too often influenced by the rich, affect those of us who cling to the belief in fairness and the rule of law.
Through his grifting actions, and his assumed immunity to the norms by which we ordinary Americans must adhere to, Thomas is showing us that we are indeed separate and unequal.