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 }}
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.
The future of January 6
On January 6, 2021, hundreds of angry people gathered outside the US Capitol to protest the certification of Joe Biden’s election as president. Some forced their way inside the building to try to forcibly stop that process.
Today, as we mark the one-year anniversary of that attack, Americans continue to disagree about these events, and their meaning.
What happened, and why? Opinions differ. Sharply.
Survey after survey measures the partisan split. A recent poll found that 78 percent of Democrats said the protesters who entered the US Capitol were “mostly violent.” Just 26 percent of Republicans agreed.
Sixty-six percent of Republicans don’t think the storming of the Capitol was an attack on the government, and 77 percent say former president Donald Trump — who certainly fired up the crowd outside the White House that day — bears no responsibility for what happened later at the Capitol.
While, 76 percent of Republicans said they disapproved of “those who forced their way into the Capitol,” 56 percent of Republicans say protesters were “defending freedom.”
Still another survey reports that 72 percent of Americans said rioters were mostly “threatening democracy,” but a quarter of respondents said they were mostly “protecting democracy.”
We shouldn’t be surprised by these wide differences of opinion. News sources favored by Republicans have reported the January 6 story by mainly showing peaceful protesters waving flags and chanting “USA.” Those most often frequented by Democrats have repeatedly shown images of protesters forcing their way into the Capitol building, angrily confronting police, threatening lawmakers, and chanting “hang Mike Pence” — an expression of their fury that the then-VP had refused to halt congressional certification of Biden’s election victory.
Given this polarization, neither future media coverage nor the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the US Capitol will change many minds ahead of midterm elections in November.
What does this mean for America’s political future?
There are also unsurprising divisions of opinion about Trump. Some 94 percent of Democrats say he’s tried to undermine democracy over the past year, while 85 of Republicans disagree.
And his future ambitions? Trump’s popularity with GOP voters remains undeniably strong. Some 78 percent of Republicans want him to run for president in 2024, a boost from 66 percent last May.
In addition, Trump has worked to cement his hold on the Republican Party ahead of the midterm elections and the 2024 presidential vote. Since leaving office, he’s aggressively used his undeniable popularity with GOP voters to endorse more candidates than in the past, to back many more pro-Trump insurgents in races against Republican incumbents whose loyalty Trump questions, and to inject his name into local races that determine how future elections are administered. That could help Trump overturn future vote results much more easily.
That last point speaks to Top Risk #3 in the annual global geopolitical risks report from Eurasia Group, our parent company. If Republicans win back control of Congress in 2022, it becomes easier for them to boost Trump by rejecting certifications of elections in 2024.
What about the floundering Democrats?
While 65 percent of Americans consider President Biden’s 2020 election victory “legitimate,” his leadership isn’t inspiring much confidence these days. A composite of current polls puts President Biden’s approval rating at just 43 percent. That number is lower than every president of the past 75 years, except Trump, at this point in his presidency.
Unless Biden turns that around, his unpopularity will offer Republicans a sizable advantage in the midterms, which historically favor the party outside the White House.
In fact, the Democrats’ best chance for a stronger-than-expected showing in November lies in delivering on their promises on Capitol Hill. This week also marks the one-year anniversary of the surprise runoff victories of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, which gave the Dems majority control of the Senate. Everything Democrats moved through Congress in 2021, including trillions of dollars in pandemic relief and infrastructure investment, was made possible by that result.
If Democrats can use the next 10 months to move more legislation — in particular, the controversial Build Back Better to rewrite the American social contract — their ability to prove they can get things done might help them match Republican enthusiasm and voter turnout.
That’s not the direction US politics appears headed — Republicans are likely to take back both Houses of Congress — but it’s one of the stories we’ll be tracking throughout this year.
Quick Take: Myanmar’s military coup is nothing like the US insurrection
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. I've got your Quick Take kicking off the week. Plenty of things we could talk about, but I thought we would actually discuss Myanmar, because it's not generally something in the news. And yet just this weekend, we had a successful military coup and immediately of course you see Americans say, "Hey, that's just like what happened in the United States, could have been us." And the answer is no, no. What happened in the US was an insurrection that failed, but it was not a coup and the reason it was not a coup is because the military played absolutely no role. In fact, all of the former secretaries of defense said that Democrat and Republican, that it was a free and fair election, and that Biden was going to be president. That needed to be respected. The joint chiefs wrote their letter together saying that it was critical to stand for the constitution.
No, not only did the military not play a role in undermining the transition, it actively stood up and the professionalization and the independence of the military, ultimately reporting to the American people, serving the American nation is a big piece of why the US political system retains its resilience, despite all of the erosion of institutions, all of the delegitimacy. That is not the case in Myanmar, where until 10 years ago it was a military dictatorship. There then was a transition that was imperfect. And now we are back to military dictatorship once again, as the military took over everything. Now it's worth going back to 10 years ago, when the transition of power that, that ended up with Aung San Suu Kyi being released, the incredibly well-known opposition figure who was under house arrest and ended up being allowed to functionally run the country. That agreement was with a new constitution.
That allowed the military ... it was a compromise. It allowed them to still have a fair amount of power. So for example, they still control the security ministries directly, unlike the civilian control in the United States. And they were guaranteed 25% of all seats in parliament, no matter what. And then you have elections on top of that to determine the rest and the military can stand their political figures in those elections as well. So, despite the fact that here's a woman that had been under house arrest and was allowed to come to power and you move towards civilian rule, it wasn't full civilian rule. The military still played a very significant role. You'd call it a hybrid system and look, the economy was in horrible shape. There was hope on the part of the military that by allowing a transition, that the country would do better economically, and they could also make more money themselves and there would be some liberalization.
So, all of that is what we saw over the last 10 years, generally welcomed by the United States and the Obama, Biden administration at that point. Now a new military leader right now, who really wants to hold onto power, but had no good way to do it. they tried to reform the constitution to provide additional safeguards and benefits for the military last year, that failed. They had elections recently. They really underperformed in those elections. They said it was a fraud. They had tried to delay the elections because of coronavirus, no dice, the Supreme Court threw out the claims of fraud there. That's obviously a equivalent to what we saw in the United States in terms of the judiciary and they were threatening, if you're not willing to compromise with us in particularly let the military leader who was about to retire, become the president, or otherwise have power, that they were going to change the constitution by force.
And they were engaging in some ... you saw tanks rolling around in major cities over the last few days, that kind of thing. Well, they didn't come to a deal. And as a consequence of no deal, the military swooped in. Now, Aung San Suu Kyi is yet again being detained. She has told the people not to tolerate this, functionally to revolt. But the other leaders of her party also being detained. So too, many members of the local media has been taken over by the military. Means of communication, temporarily shut down. In other words, this was well-planned and the military is in charge of everything now. So, what are the implications of this? First point, Aung San Suu Kyi, she won the Nobel Prize. Everyone knows her. She's no hero. After being in office, you probably one of the things Myanmar also famous for aside from her is this incredible ethnic cleansing that occurred against local Rohingya.
As a consequence, you had villages that were burned to the ground. Thousands of people killed, massive numbers of refugees streaming into Bangladesh as a consequence, other places. And she supported that. She supported the ethnic cleansing. It's a nationalist position, having nothing to do with her interest in democracy away from the military. A little bit like Navalny and his Russian nationalist position against Central Asians or Ukrainians or Georgians for example. Even though he's pro democracy, not someone I think should get the Nobel Peace Prize. In the case of Myanmar, much bigger deal because she was so well-known internationally, so revered and then became such a disappointment in such a massive human rights disaster debacle. Having said that, she still is the strongest voice for democracy in the country. And so the fact that she's now being detained, absolutely falls against everything that democracies in the world should want for the future of Myanmar.
You want her released, you want the civilian government to be able to come back. There will be some demonstrations, I'm sure, but domestically nowhere near the kind of capacity to undo this military rule. Internationally, the influence is mostly China and the Chinese may not like military leadership, but they certainly aren't going to undermine it or oppose it. As long as the economic relations with China continue to be stable, as they will. Furthermore, other countries with significant economic relations with Myanmar in the region, Southeast Asian countries, Japan, they all have relations with Myanmar that are based on noninterference. So, they're not going to stand for significant US sanctions. So, if the United States is saying, "You got to let her go. They've got to do something or else." There ain't much, or else. The United States is a marginal player here. And here I think it's important for us to understand that the United States increasingly frequently in a GZero world American exceptionalism, doesn't get you very far.
So, in the United States, whether it's saying the North Koreans can't have nukes or else. Or else what? Well, they're a nuclear power and the administrations on both sides of the aisle have been unable to do anything about that. Assad must go. Or else what? The United States has marginal influence over Syria. They're engaging much more closely with the Russians, with Iran, with other countries. Obama's gone, Assad is still there. The Russians must release Navalny or else. Or else what? Navalny probably tomorrow is going to be sentenced to a long jail term. The United States will put more targeted sanctions on Russia. The Europeans will be more reluctant because they trade much more with the Russians and a lot of them are reliant on energy there. What is the United States it's going to do? Myanmar, same thing. So, the United States is on the right side of these issues, but increasingly in a more fragmented world where the Chinese, the Russians are willing to say, "Screw you, we're not paying any attention." Other countries are more aligned, particularly with China economically. It's getting harder for the Americans to do that. And it's also getting harder because the United States at home has just had this horribly contested election, that delegitimizes American efforts to tell other countries, "This is what you should be doing in terms of domestic governance." All of which is to say, it's going to be harder for Biden to pull off these sorts of statements and make them stick. It makes it more compelling for the Americans to engage multilaterally and not make these announcements themselves but have a large number of allies on board. Strength in numbers, but also coordination in terms of what values really will stick as opposed to those the Americans care about but nobody else really does. And finally, this is a problem it's likely to get worse over time.
So, that's a little bit of what I think about Myanmar. I hope everyone's well, stay safe. If you're in New York, avoid snow. Snow is kind of fun actually. But avoid people. Be good. Talk to you soon.
After the insurrection: will Congress find common ground?
Can Democrats and Republicans agree on anything? Ian Bremmer talks to two very different lawmakers from each chamber Congress: two-term Democratic Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and freshman Republican South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace. The guests give a vivid account of their experience at the Capitol during the January 6 riots and make a case for- or-against impeaching former President Trump. They'll also weigh in on President Biden's proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus package and where exactly Republicans and Democrats might be able to work together in 2021.
Kara Swisher on Trump’s social media ban
What does renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher make of the swift and near-universal social media ban imposed on former President Trump shortly after the January 6 Capitol riots? She supported the move, but she doesn't think these companies should be left off the hook either. "Why are these systems built this way so someone like President Trump can abuse them in such a fashion. Or in fact, not abuse them but use them exactly as they were built." Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is part of the latest episode of GZERO World.
Senator Chris Murphy on why impeachment trial should proceed despite a likely acquittal
Although many Senate Republicans have signaled their intentions to acquit former President Trump of impeachment charges, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy thinks the trial should proceed anyway. "Ultimately we have a constitutional responsibility in the Senate to process these articles…you can't skip the accountability phase for a President who tried in the final days of his presidency to lead either a non-violent or a violent insurrection against democracy." If the situation was reversed, Murphy adds, and it was a president from his own party being impeached, he would still want to hold that president accountable. Sadly, he concludes, the same cannot be said about many of his colleagues across the aisle.
Murphy's conversation with Ian Bremmer is part of the latest episode of GZERO World, in which Bremmer is also joined by freshman Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. The episode will start airing on public television nationwide beginning this Friday, January 29th. Check local listings.
Are online extremists moving underground?
One result of the law enforcement crackdown on pro-Trump Capitol rioters following the events of January 6 is that many right-wing extremists have left public social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter for encrypted apps like Telegram and Signal. But renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher isn't all that concerned. "The white supremacist stuff, it's like mold. They thrived in the light, actually." Now that these groups no longer have such public platforms, their recruiting power, Swisher argues, will be greatly diminished. Plus, she points out, they were already on those encrypted apps to begin with. Swisher's conversation with Ian Bremmer was part of the latest episode of GZERO World.
Kara Swisher on Big Tech’s big problem
Renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher has no doubt that social media companies bear responsibility for the January 6th pro-Trump riots at the Capitol and will likely be complicit in the civil unrest that may continue well into Biden's presidency. It's no surprise, she argues, that the online rage that platforms like Facebook and Twitter intentionally foment translated into real-life violence. But if Silicon Valley's current role in our national discourse is untenable, how can the US government rein it in? That, it turns out, is a bit more complicated. Swisher joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.