Read on Twitter
An interesting "negative case," the dog that didn't bark... Why was there no pro-Trump violence on January 20, and only miniscule pro-Trump protests? After January 6, extremists had promised more, across the US.
A few explanations, and thoughts for the future...
A few explanations, and thoughts for the future...
1. The violence of 6 Jan was almost universally repudiated, called shameful. It backfired in a normative way, making others unwilling to risk being shamed themselves. Or possibly even to protest, to be associated with insurrectionists. So words matter?
2. More simple: Many Jan 6 perpetrators were arrested. Beyond random perps, law enforcement showed they were taking Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc. more seriously. Increased costs of potential repeat. (Although I wait to see actual sentences. Will they be a slap on the wrist?)
3. Target hardening. Capitol and surrounding area, and state capitals, were locked down.
4. Trump gave up. It was only after January 6 that he said there would be a peaceful transfer of power. 2 months after election, and almost a month after SCOTUS shot down his case.
4. Trump gave up. It was only after January 6 that he said there would be a peaceful transfer of power. 2 months after election, and almost a month after SCOTUS shot down his case.
5. Q imploded? There was some (additional) de-platforming after January 6, among other issues. I assume there is non-Q Trump support, so Q shouldn't explain it all, but it's a big part.
Concluding: I wonder which of these mattered more. Or what else?
Most importantly: IMAGINE if these five things had been taken seriously before January 6.
(re: #1, of course you couldn't repudiate the violence before it happened, but you could not encourage it.)
Most importantly: IMAGINE if these five things had been taken seriously before January 6.
(re: #1, of course you couldn't repudiate the violence before it happened, but you could not encourage it.)
