Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
January 6 anniversary: America's back — against the wall?
If the January 6th assault on the US Capitol had a face, it would probably be that of the horned and shirtless “Q-Anon Shaman.” He was one of many weirdos, along with right-wing extremists and militia members who assaulted Congress that day. But there were also many ordinary Americans — imagine your neighbor calling to hang Mike Pence.
A democracy dies when regular people choose violence over votes, and we can no longer agree on objective reality.
But the historical whitewashing from the likes of Fox News and others seems to be working. A year later, two-thirds of Republicans still want a twice-impeached Donald Trump to keep dominating US politics — 10 percentage points more than on January 6, 2021. And even more GOP voters still believe Joe Biden stole the 2020 presidential election.
This November, though, it's the Democrats who're in danger in the midterm elections — as is US democracy itself. Perhaps America is not back, as Biden says, but has its back against the wall.
What this means for Dems is that they're in for a midterm shellacking like the one that 12 years ago humbled Biden's old boss, Barack Obama.
The Graphic Truth: Dem/GOP voters' very different views of Jan 6
One year after the insurrection at the US Capitol, how do Americans reflect on that event and its aftermath? Has it brought people together from across the political divide who collectively regret this stain on American democracy? Nope. Surveys show that Republicans, and GOP-leaning voters, overwhelmingly think that former President Trump is not to blame for what went down on January 6,2021, and that pursuing the rioters now is not a priority. Democrats, on the other hand, firmly disagree. We take a look at voters’ views taken right after the insurrection as well as nine months later.
One journalist’s view from inside the US Capitol on January 6
British reporter Robert Moore, who works in Washington DC for the UK network ITV News, was one of the few journalists embedded with the insurrectionists that stormed the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Moore describes what he saw as he and his broadcast news crew covered what became an angry and dangerous mob, as they forced their way into the halls of Congress.
Watch the episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Is American democracy in danger?
The world believes the US can do better but its ability to lead diminishes
Ian Bremmer shares his perspective on global politics on this week's World In (More Than) 60 Seconds:
Sum up the world's response to the US Capitol riots.
I'd say two things. The leaders I've spoken to around the world in the last few days, the first is disappointment, shock that something like this could happen in the United States. I mean, on the one hand, really depressing. On the other, a lot of people that really do expect and believe that the United States can do better. And I think that's still the case. I think there is still a lot of belief that the United States is better than what is being reflected in the international news right now, from the activities that are happening in Washington and perhaps across the country over the coming days. The second is people want to know what's going to happen as a consequence. And when I say what's going to happen, I mean, first and foremost, what are the consequences of the behavior that's been taken of President Trump, of all of these members of House and Senate that have been putting forth this disinformation and calling for this insurrection? And on that front, I don't have anything very good to say. I mean, there is no question in my mind that tomorrow Trump will be impeached for a second time. It will be largely a party line vote. People are getting excited because maybe 10 or 20 Republicans will vote their conscience and vote in favor of impeachment. The vast majority of sitting Republicans will vote against, which is an extraordinary thing and sends a very strong message to other countries around the world that impeachment is no longer a part of rule of law in the United States, which of course really diminishes the balance of powers in the US and allows the executive, if the executive controls the legislature, to get away with basically whatever they want.
You could say, "Well, Biden wouldn't do that." Well yeah, but it doesn't matter. You still want to have that balance of power. And that really is eroding. And I think that that's true so broadly in terms of the lack of accountability and responsibility for everyone that is involved. I mean, you can't call for unity when you've just supported an overthrow of a free and fair election. Now, the first thing you do is you say, "That's wrong. The election is legitimate." It was legitimate. There wasn't systematic fraud, and Biden is the incoming President Elect. Yes. And if you said something that was contrary to that, you apologize, you throw yourself on the mercy of everyone you screwed with. Absent that happening, and that is certainly not happening from President Trump and is certainly not happening for those that supported his measures in House and Senate, there is no unity. And absent unity, the ability of the United States to lead effectively around the world continues to diminish. So, there's that.
Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's Beijing friendly leader accused the West of hypocrisy citing US Capitol riot. Does she have a point?
Well, I mean, obviously there's hypocrisy all over the place and certainly historically from the United States, but for the leader of Hong Kong to say that is more than a little rich. There is not moral equivalence between the Chinese government and the US government. As bad and as divided and dysfunctional as the US is right now, the Chinese are systematically abrogating the political rights of Hong Kong citizens. I think you're going to see a mass exodus of a lot of Chinese from Hong Kong to the UK where they can have citizenship and anywhere else they can get, if they care about personal liberties, because they're gone. A lot of Americans do care about personal liberties. And there's no question that President Trump is not one of them. There's no question that if he could have engineered a coup, he would have. His interest in democracy in the US is very limited, but that is not to in any way imply that the American political system is somehow as hypocritical as that of communist authoritarian China. And for the leader of Hong Kong to say that, well she has to. It's her job. And I'm sensitive to that. I mean, anyone in that position is has to say what they say. Having said that, I'm not so sensitive because you put yourself in that position. It's like there are people that are in positions that the position requires them to do and say immoral things. You can justify what they say because anyone in that post will do it, but you'd kind of hope that they wouldn't take that position. And I obviously am prepared to blame her for that.
Why have Merkel and Macron objected to Trump's Twitter ban?
Well, because they think it's arbitrary and they're right. Twitter has not banned Mahathir from Malaysia, despite calling for massive violence against non-Muslims saying that that's perfectly justified. They haven't banned Iranian Supreme leader, Khamenei, despite calling for violence against Israel. But they ban Trump and they ban him permanently, for life. They didn't need to do that. They could have easily done a short-term suspension until after the inauguration and that would have gotten you through the period that's most dangerous in terms of violence and transition in the United States. And they could have also published rules for all heads of state and former heads of state. Very easy to have someone monitor that. And if any of them then breach that rule, then it applies and they're thrown off maybe forever, but they're not doing that. And Merkel and Macron fundamentally object to the idea that arbitrary norms and rules being set by CEOs that are principle shareholders of major corporations is not the way you should engage in governance or deal with free speech. Now, again, they have the legal right to do it because since it's a company, and in the United States a company can decide what its norms and terms for service are. But if they're a monopoly for getting your message out there on social media, then they kind of need to be regulated differently. And the point that Merkel and Macron have, which is a much deeper point and a more obvious one, is that Trump's behavior should be responded to and policed, not by a social media company, but by Congress. And going back to what I said at the beginning, if impeachment has failed, it is no longer a tool of rule of law in the United States. And it's pretty clear that is the case. Impeachment no longer serves the purpose. It no longer functions as a guardrail on abuse of power of the executive in the US, then you've lost something fundamental in a representative democratic system. And I think that the French and German leaders are deeply and publicly concerned about that and they're right to be, I am as well.
This time, Trump's impeachment will have Republican support
Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares his perspective as Congress considers a second impeachment:
Big story this week is the president of the United States is about to be the only president ever to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. Articles of impeachment should pass the House on Wednesday morning. The difference between this impeachment and the last impeachment is that this time there will be Republican support for the removal from office. A Senate trial can't begin until probably after the president has left office however. So this really isn't about kicking him out. It's about holding him accountable for the riot that happened at the Capitol last week, and potentially disqualifying him from ever running for future federal office. All eyes will be on the Senate and while it doesn't look likely that he will be convicted there, should some of the more prominent leaders in the Senate come out in favor of his impeachment, I think you may find the 17 votes you need in order to convict Trump.
A long shot at this point, but the president's behavior over the last week has not earned him any allies amongst Republicans and is starting to alienate some of their donor base from supporting the Republican Party going forward, which could potentially be a huge problem even after President Trump is out of office. President Trump himself is facing some recriminations about the riot and is losing a lot of sponsorships at his properties. This could lead to future financial pressure on the president, which would of course only increase the importance for him to stay politically relevant as that would be a source of fundraising in an influence in the Republican Party.
So a big historic week here in Washington. With the inauguration next week as well, you have the potential for future violence here in Washington, DC, although with all the defense forces that are armed and the new fence around the Capitol building, that probably seems a lot less likely. However, federal officials are worried about violence at state capitals around the day of Joe Biden's inauguration.
So, 2021 not the quiet year we were expecting. We'll see what happens next.
Quick Take: President Trump should be removed from office
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here on the beginning of this extraordinary week, with the United States dominating international news, and the way we think about the future of the global order. You can say we dodged a bullet last week though. We are certainly not through the political crisis in the United States. Certainly, I also think about how it could have been a lot worse. How close we were to the vice president, his family, members of Congress, getting injured or killed. Frankly in terms of the election, if the house had turned to the GOP, and it was close to doing so, how the election response to a Biden win could have been contested much more easily, and you then have indeed a constitutional crisis. Or if the vote was much closer than it was, as opposed to the seven million and significant electoral count difference, about how the president could have been more successful, in his consistent efforts to overturn the outcome.
So, no, we didn't have a constitutional crisis. But with the sitting president that was prepared to call a free and fair election rigged under any circumstances, it could have been possible. Now, yes, Joe Biden gets inaugurated on January 20th, and certainly we all hope that it's going to be as safe and smooth as possible. Though I don't think anyone can come close to guaranteeing that. The country remains massively divided. The potential for violence has gone way up. Weaponized disinformation, that's basically what has happened. From the top, the very top of the government. People now believe that the election was stolen. That it was taken away from them. And they believe that because President Trump has been actively promoting that fiction. And to be clear, if it were true that the election had been stolen, that would be something that people legitimately revolt over, all over the world and in the United States. The fact that it's not true, the fact that that disinformation was weaponized, is what is truly unprecedented in the United States.
And why in my view, President Trump should be removed from office for that, for that. Yes, impeached a second time, it will certainly happen this week. Will he be convicted for it? Almost certainly not. In part because you can say there's no time, but in part because there isn't support for it among Republicans in the Senate. Most GOP House members say, "No." Most GOP senators say, "No." Roy Blunt, the Republican Senator from Missouri perhaps said it best or worst. He said that Trump touched the hot stove, and won't do it again. Senator Blunt, that is not what President Trump did. He actually turned the gas on high, and he got as many people to touch the stove as humanly possible. And those people are still out there, and they still believe, the majority of them, that the election was stolen. They're still angry.
Trump has lost some of his supporters over the course of his actions in the past weeks, as he should. But certainly not all of them. And those that are with him, are going to be even more strongly with him because they truly believe that they have had their rights usurped. And a narrow group but a real group, will become violent as a consequence of that. And we saw that play out so very tragically in our nation's Capitol on January 6th. A challenging time for the United States. Yes, an acknowledgement of a new administration coming in. And I have seen that from the majority of Republican leaders in the country. But I want to be clear. We have to understand that there was incitement. And I watched a bunch of Fox News to see how they were covering all of this. And they're clearly sort of trying to balance between a level of anger, and decrying the violence that occurred, but also keeping the Republican Party together. And that creates some pretty difficult outcomes.
Like not saying that in the speech that Trump gave, that we're going to have to fight much harder, or Mike Pence is going to come through for us, or we'll never take our country back with weakness, and that supporters must walk down to the Capitol. All things that Trump said in the morning of January 6th. The biggest impact of what Trump has done is not from the political process as a consequence. The biggest impact is from the social media companies who have de-platformed Trump. Have removed him from their services. Which means that Trump is permanently, meaning for the rest of his life, taken off of Twitter where he had almost 90 million followers. He's taken off of Facebook. He's taken off of Pinterest for reasons I can't quite fathom.
Now I want to be clear. I think the appropriate place to respond to what Trump has done is in Congress. It is not the CEOs of individual social media companies. So Trump's influence is power, is going to be diminished radically, because he can no longer have a megaphone. And in fact I don't think he would have become president, if it wasn't for that megaphone. In the same way that Bolsonaro in Brazil doesn't become president without Facebook, and Salvini in Italy doesn't get to drive his league, if it isn't for Instagram and Facebook. But Angela Merkel the German chancellor came out and she said that it was wrong for Facebook and Twitter to de-platform Trump. And she is no fan of Trump. And I am sympathetic to what she had to say. There should be clear rules and norms that apply, and standards, that apply to everyone on a platform. And when they're broken, they should be taken up accordingly.
It should not be arbitrary. It should not be a response to the mob suddenly saying, "Oh my God! You have to take Trump down." Or the workers saying, "Oh my God! You have to take Trump down." That is not the way forward for a representative democracy. At the least my view would have been, take him down for a period of time until after the inauguration. So that the most dangerous period of violence has diffused, God willing, and then make very clear what the standards are that if they're broken, then he can be permanently de-platformed. You can put one person, you can put 10 people on watching tweets as they come up, and ensure that they don't. And if they do, boom that's it. But I think this is it's going to cause more problems longer term than it actually solves.
And I worry that we live now in a country where the most important decisions about the most powerful political figure in the United States, have been taken. Have determined by a very small group of very wealthy individuals, that have no accountability or responsibility to the democratic political process. And I worry about that. I also worry about the fact that January 6th is a day that will live on in our history, our collective history in the United States, but it won't be a collective memory. I think that for many Americans it will be an extraordinary tragedy. A day when the political institutions of the US were damaged. And I fear that for many other Americans, less, fewer, but nonetheless significant numbers of Americans, it will be a day of patriotism. A day where they stood up against the deep state, and against the efforts of American leaders and wealthy people to undermine the will of the people.
That's a lie. It's wrong. It didn't happen. But so many Americans have been allowed to believe that, have been told to believe that, and too many business models have allowed the expansion of that belief. I think that the major issue I have with the social media companies today, is that their business model as it stands, is incompatible with the healthy functioning of a civil society. What you need are for the people on the platform to be real people. Not bots, not fake people, not anonymous trolls from other countries that have been set up. No, no, they need to be real people. And real people will engage in real ways with each other. I think a business platform that monetizes fake people, and does not allow us to determine the difference between the two, is a massive problem. And if that had been addressed years ago, we never would be in the situation we are in right now.
As they say, you kick the can down the road, the problem gets to be greater. And there has been an enormous amount of can kicking, both in terms of the delegitimization of American political institutions, in terms of enablers around Trump continuing to enable his accesses in the past years, and also of the media and social media companies to not address the damage that they have been doing and they are responsible for. Civil society in the United States all in service of the almighty dollar. Dollar is doing very well by the way. Right now the market is doing very well by the way. Civil society is not. At some point that's unsustainable.
Trump impeachment 2.0
After last week's storming of the US Capitol building, we asked whether Congress would act to hold President Trump responsible for inciting the insurrection to overturn the result of the 2020 election. We now know the answer: House Democrats on Monday unveiled an article of impeachment against Trump.
But though the House will vote in the coming days to begin the process, Trump — the first US president to be impeached twice — will no longer be in office by the time a trial begins in the Senate. So, why do it? Here are a few arguments for and against.
In favor. First, whatever happens in the Senate, impeachment by the House would make it clear to future presidents that encouraging violence against the government comes with consequences. If Congress were to avoid taking forceful action in an extreme case like this, the boundaries of acceptable political behavior might expand dramatically.
Second, impeaching Trump can lead to a vote to bar him from election to any federal office in the future. While conviction requires a two-thirds vote from senators, a simple majority could then ban the president from running for president in 2024, stripping him of some of his power over the Republican Party. A permanent ban would be favored openly by Democrats and maybe a few Republicans who fear Trump would freeze the 2024 GOP race by teasing a second run.
Against. First, unless Trump commits some other highly provocative act, impeachment will very likely fail again in the Senate and Trump will be acquitted. Although more Republican senators may support Trump's conviction this time, Democrats don't have the minimum 67 votes needed to remove him from office. For Trump's supporters, a second acquittal would vindicate Trump's actions, restore some of his standing within the GOP, and could even encourage more violence.
Second, despite the gravity of last week's events, impeachment remains an extremely divisive issue among Americans. Roughly the same number of Republican voters oppose it now compared to when Trump was first impeached in late 2019. Expect the GOP to argue that Americans are tired of red vs blue, and that it's time to "heal" — an argument similar to the one Gerald Ford made in pardoning Richard Nixon in 1974.
Third, impeachment is a big gamble for the incoming Biden administration at a time when — with slim majorities in the House and Senate — it'll need to deploy much of its political capital to get crucial legislation passed on pandemic relief measures like additional stimulus checks and to step up vaccinations. With the US currently reporting more than 3,500 COVID-19 deaths and upwards of 200,000 new cases each day, the public health crisis is a more urgent problem (and Biden may need a few Republican votes to offset possible resistance by moderate Democrats to some of his big-spending plans).
This may take a while. Though the process starts today, it'll end whenever it suits the Democrats, because they can decide when to forward the case to the Senate. Democratic House majority whip James Clyburn hinted on Sunday that the House may hold off on sending the article of impeachment to the Senate for weeks, so President-elect Joe Biden and the new Congress can focus on an ambitious legislative agenda during Biden's first 100 days in office.
Either way, the fate of impeachment 2.0 depends on Trump. His behavior in the coming days will determine whether Democrats can persuade enough Republican senators to convict Trump of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If the president — recently deplatformed from social media — keeps his cool, momentum toward action may recede. But if he tries to incite more violence from his supporters, or tests the limits of presidential power by pardoning himself, the political temperature in Washington will turn even hotter.ANARCHY! How the world covered the insurrection in DC
Earlier this week, much of the world went to sleep — or woke up — to news of an armed insurrection in the US capital. Around the globe, people saw surreal images of rioters, egged on by the president himself, ransacking the seat of government in a country that has long styled itself as both an example and an advocate of democracy. What did the newspapers around the world have to say about it? Here are a few front pages that we particularly liked.
The Kingston-based Jamaican Observer came out swinging, declaring it "ANARCHY!" Australia's Daily Telegraph quipped it was a "Capitol Offence", while the Brazilian daily O Estado de São Paulo described an "Attack on Democracy."
The Arabic-language broadsheet Al-Sharq al-Awsat, meanwhile, declared America's image "shaken" by an "invasion of the Congress", and Croatia's Večernji List went all the way, announcing: "Trump supporters attempt coup."
Leave it to the German tabloid Hamburger Morgenpost, of course, to slap "SHAME!" over a picture of "Q Shaman", a prominent pro-Trump Qanon conspiracy theorist who showed up at the Capitol in his usual buffalo-horned headdress.
Common to all of these headlines, and others around the world, was a sense of urgent disbelief — perhaps tinged for some with a sense of schadenfreude — that these scenes of overt political violence were now happening in Washington.
In the coming days, we'll take a deeper look at the global implications for US foreign policy, as well as democracy and rule of law around the world. How was it covered where you live? Let us know.
(Big shout to Newseum.org, by the way, where we found several of these international front pages. Their Today's Front Pages feature is always worth a peek.)