Response to Journal Inquirer Editorial of 02-10-2021

A slightly altered version of this commentary appeared in the post comments section titled, "Washington had no 'coup' but Connecticut had one."  https://www.journalinquirer.com/opinion/chris_powell/washington-had-no-coup-but-connecticut-had-one/article_8fa9ce52-6bc0-11eb-9cdc-3f0bd99ecd5b.html

As so often the case with your pieces, I am both amused and dismayed by your casual dismissal of Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential elections by a range of legal and not-so-legal means, while identifying the “real” coup with Gov. Lamont's extension of his emergency powers in tackling the ongoing health problem caused by the COVID pandemic. As you note, Lamont's extension was ratified by the General Assembly, which has the political and legal authority to do so.  If it so chose, or if the political constellation of powers were so constructed, the Assembly could have blocked it.  Under the circumstances of legality and political power, the CT Democratic Party at the legislative and executive levels were completely within their constitutional authority to so extend the governor’s emergency powers, an authority that could be blocked by state or federal courts at a variety of levels. 

According to your own definition of a coup as, “the seizure of the major agencies of government”; in enacting his constitutional authority in accordance with the legislative body, the governor’s actions were anything but a coup.  Your related claim that “Connecticut no longer has a republican form of government,” is equally ludicrous since the governor was proceeding in exact accordance with his authority in seeking to preserve the health and welfare of the state in his judicious response to the health crisis (which you have perpetually dismissed), which, without effective management could (as national stats clearly demonstrate) easily get out of control.  You and I have discussed the details of this previously, which I will not rehash here.

Your comments about Trump's actions regarding his attack on the electoral process, extending from before the election (“The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged”) to the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol, are equally problematic, as is your unnecessary caricature that: “Many in the [Democratic] party are campaigning to banish from public life anyone who supported Trump in any way and [are] even trying to suspend freedom of speech.”  Of course, you know that is plain wrong and a weak rhetorical strategy that, in the forum that you serve as serve as the primary editorial columnist for a major regional newspaper, begs for substantive critical analysis.  You use the following quote from Lincoln to buttress your contention (it’s only an assertion rather than an argument as you present it) that Trump was not really the threat to democracy that many claim—that is, so long as “the people retain their virtue and vigilance.” In that case, “no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." 

First, it seems to me, the practice of civic virtue and republican vigilence is in short supply, especially, but not exclusively, the Republican Congress and the executive branch it controlled for the last four years.  More fundamentally, while our institutions held in this case, there was no guarantee or inevitability that they would have if the Chief Executive were a bit more politically astute, if a few rogue state officials or judges broke in Trump’s favor, or if the election were a bit closer.

Your contention that Trump called his most fanatical supporters to gather in DC on Jan. 6 was merely to put pressure on Congress to persuade members to reject the results of the electoral College misses a great deal, particularly the former president’s maniacal obsession to do everything he could, by means legal and not-so legal to overturn the results of the presidential election.  It also minimizes the evil the invaders intended, which included serious threats to assassinate the Vice President and Speaker of the House, the second and third persons in line of presidential succession, which, indeed would have created a constitutional crisis of major proportions. I have no reason not believe that given the opportunity, the invaders would have done serious bodily harm to key members of the Congress, especially among the four congresswomen Trump identified for his special ire.

Moreover, if you have been watching the case the House managers have been making in favor of the conviction of Trump by the US Senate, it would be difficult not to minimize the destruction the Capitol invaders actually caused, including the death of a Capitol police officer, the injury of over 100 other officers, the desecration of the Congress, itself, and the temporary disruption of the certification of the Electoral College and peaceful transfer of power. Meanwhile, for the first several hours of the invasion, Trump was mean tweeting against VP Pence, attaching his incendiary speech to a tweet in the first hour of the invasion, and calling Senator Tommy Tuberville, encouraging him to contest the ballots of up to up ten states, with the hopeful result of causing enough collective confusion that would push the selection of the next president into the House of Representatives based on a state-by-state vote. This would have resulted in a Trump victory; the popular vote and the electoral college be damned. Taking all of this into account, it is a safe bet to conclude that Trump radically violated his constitutional oath of office and was a danger of the first order to the democratic republic of the United States of America.