Political experts at Southland universities said Wednesday they were horrified but not surprised when chaos and violence erupted as the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a mob intent on blocking Congress from affirming Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election.
Thousands of Trump loyalists had earlier gathered to hear the president speak outside the White House, during which he told them that his presidency was being stolen and alleged similar fraud had undermined Tuesday’s Senate runoff elections in Georgia in which two Democrats were elected.
After the speech, Trump supporters bearing flags and wearing MAGA hats marched on the Capitol Building, where members of Congress were debating Electoral College votes from Arizona, one of the swing states in which fraud has been alleged by the president. The inflamed crowd managed to halt Congress’ counting of the electoral votes as the police evacuated lawmakers from the building and scenes of violence and chaos were broadcast across the world. The entire District of Columbia National Guard eventually moved in and secured the Capitol.
“I felt oddly not surprised and horrified at what took place,” said Christian Grose, an associate professor of political science and public policy at USC who is academic director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute. “I’m curious to see if there will be a backlash to this (within the Republican party).”
Grose said the disruption could happen again in the future, depending on how the event is handled.
“It depends on the leadership,” Grose said. “This is a sign of the division in the country combined with widely propagated disinformation.”
Craig Smith, a Cal State Long Beach professor emeritus and director of the university’s Center for First Amendment Studies, said he penned an article for the National Communication Association in 2019, in which he predicted that Trump’s rhetoric would lead to events such as what occurred Wednesday.
“While the First Amendment protects the president’s right to express his opinion, it is fair to ask if this fascistic style is a precursor to fascistic action,” Smith wrote then.
Smith, who worked as a speechwriter for President Gerald Ford and as a consultant to President George H.W. Bush during his 1980 run for the presidency, said that the angry crowd seen on TV screens at the Capitol Building and surrounding streets did not represent the GOP.
“There has been a divide in the party,” Smith said. “It’s very disappointing to many of us that more Republicans didn’t find Trump as revolting as he is. What we’re seeing is just horrific.”
A parallel, he said, is the era of Joseph McCarthy, when blatant untruths were given credence among supporters despite questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by supposed enemies was greatly exaggerated.
“That was where fragmented information was used to weave McCarthy’s theory on internal subversion until he was revealed for the charlatan that he was,” Smith said.
As for the Capitol attack, Trump fed his supporters misinformation, aided by certain cable channels and media outlets, and incited them into action, the CSULB professor said.
“Today, you can have the craziest thoughts in the world and find verification for them somewhere,” Smith said. “Trump rode that horse for four years. I’ve talked to Trump supporters and they’ve lost touch with reality. They’re reinforced by Fox News and Breitbart, and there’s nothing you can do or say to undo it.”