I. In Judge J. Michael Luttig's opening statement (which was not read aloud on Day 4 of the January 6 Committee hearing), he made a point that I don't recall hearing in his televised testimony: it is only Republicans who can end the war on democracy. Here is how his written statement began:
A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife’s edge.
America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other -- over our democracy.
January 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, January 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for America’s democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day.
A peaceful end to these wars is desperately needed. The war for our democracy could lead to the peaceful end to the war for America’s cultural heart and soul. But if a peaceful end to the war for America’s democracy is not achievable, there is little chance for a peaceful end to that war. The settlement of this war over our democracy is necessary to the settlement of any war that will ever come to America, whether from her shores or to her shores. Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.
Like our war from a distant time, these twin wars are “testing whether th[is] nation or any nation . . . so conceived in Liberty . . . can long endure.” We must hope that January 6 was the final battle of at least the deadly war for America’s democracy.
"Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war."
I agree. Doing so is a responsibility of the leadership of that political party, the Republican Party. Furthermore, it is hard to see any other viable way to bring this war to a peaceful, democratic end.
II. During Day 5 of the hearings, Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers, a man of strong religious faith and commitment to conservative principles, offered powerful testimony about the intense pressure, which he withstood, from Donald Trump and his allies to take action to decertify the 2020 presidential election in his state. There wasn't the least evidence that the election was rigged and simply being a Republican was not sufficient reason to throw out the results. He explained his refusal: "[I]t is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so, for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being. I — I will not do it."
Near the end of his testimony, Adam Schiff asked Speaker Bowers to read a passage from his journal, written in December 2020 while he was being besieged to act contrary to his conscience:
It is painful to have friends who have been such a help to me turn on me with such rancor. I may in the eyes of men not hold correct opinions or act according to their vision or convictions, but I do not take this current situation in a light manner, a fearful manner, or a vengeful manner. I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to. With any contrived desire towards deflection of my deep foundational desire to follow God's will as I believe He led my conscience to embrace. How else will I ever approach Him in the wilderness of life? Knowing that I ask this guidance only to show myself a coward in defending the course He let me take — He led me to take.
In his written statement to the committee Bowers had referenced the opening paragraph of Ronald Reagan's 1981 inaugural address: "To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle."
Bowers' testimony was heartfelt and his strength of character, impressive. Drawing on faith in God and in a conservative icon whom he admired, he had withstood pressure and vilification and done the right thing. Yet on the day before his testimony, in an interview with the AP, he asserted that, if given the choice of Trump vs. Biden in 2024, he would again cast his vote for Trump:
Bowers said he has not watched the committee’s hearings, but did see some of the video clips showing the rampage at the Capitol. He said it sickened him watching people who supported Trump attacking police, including a man who had protested at the Arizona Capitol.
“I’m appalled at what I saw,” Bowers said, “I don’t mind their having these hearings. I don’t mind. I think it illuminates something we need to see big time, and take stock of ourselves. And I hope it would sober us.”
Bowers was one of five recipients of this year’s John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award for his refusal to consider overturning the 2020 election results despite pressure from Trump and his supporters.
But while Bowers said the efforts by Giuliani and other Trump backers have been hurtful, he does not levy any criticism on Trump directly and would support him if he were on the ballot.
“If he is the nominee, if he was up against Biden, I’d vote for him again,” Bowers said. “Simply because what he did the first time, before COVID, was so good for the county. In my view it was great.”
III. What are we to make of this? Does Bowers, a man of individual principle, not see the damage Trump and his allies wrought on the American body politic through their ferocious efforts to overturn the election? In his narrative to the committee, Bowers stands as a man who knows right from wrong and who refuses to do the wrong thing. He is steadfast even in the face of anger and abuse. Is his a tale of personal morality only?
If this were so, we might regard his willingness to move on (perhaps as an act of Christian forgiveness) as commendable. But the story transcends one individual. And in Bowers' testimony, he recognizes a broader context, reporting how he pushed back against John Eastman:
And I said, again, I took an oath. For me to take that, to do what you do, would — would be counter to my oath. I don't recall if it was in that conversation clearly that we talked more about the oath. But I said, what would you have me do? And he said just do it and let the court sort it out. And I said you're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof, and that's going to be good enough with me? That I would — I would put us through that, my state, that I swore to uphold both in Constitution and in law?
Does Bowers not recognize what the final months of Trump's ruthless battle to stay in office has put the United States of America through? The Speaker has appealed to religion, to democratic principles (as articulated by Reagan), to the constitutions of the nation and his state, to the rule of law, and to his oath of office as the bases for his refusal to assist in overthrowing the election.
When push comes to shove, Rusty Bowers is not willing to cheat. But he is willing to vote for a cheater. He is willing to stand in solidarity with the former president's allies, whom he recognizes as cheaters. He is unwilling to do the dirty work himself. He will not sully his personal integrity through criminal activity. But, if others on his team are willing to go there, so be it.
Bowers believes that the first three years of the Trump presidency were "so good for the country" that he is prepared to overlook the lawlessness and the hostility toward American democracy. In this, he is at one with the majority of his party. The policy differences between Biden and Trump outweigh the damage that cheating brings to democratic institutions. Immigration? Regulation? Tax policy? Control of the Supreme Court? Commitment to the Republican position on a range of issues outweighs the rule of law, the sanctity of free and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power in the broader scheme of things.
And even more critically than specific issues, a host of cultural differences separating our two polarized political parties bolsters the decision of Republicans to side with the red team, as Bowers does. Even as it attacks American democratic institutions, the Republican Party embraces a 21st century version of traditional values (imbued in nostalgia and myth) that sustains loyalty, while on the other side of the coin, cultural revulsion toward team blue, toward what is regarded as the liberal establishment, makes voting for a Democrat (even to preserve American democracy) virtually unthinkable. (We were at war, as Judge Luttig reminded us, long before January 6.)
IV. Rusty Bowers, in my view, acted nobly in the aftermath of the 2020 election. He held to his principles, which in the months following the 2020 election were consistent with the defense of American democracy at a time when democracy was threatened. As Speaker of the House, and as a leader of the Arizona Republican party, he did the right thing. He refused to be steamrolled into embracing the big lie that the election was rigged; he refused to deny that Joe Biden was elected fair and square. He refused to bend to Donald Trump's lawless, unconstitutional, undemocratic campaign to stay in office after his defeat at the polls. He did his duty.
Near the end of today's hearing, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen observed: "When you damage our fundamental institutions, it's not easy to repair them."
Rusty Bowers is prepared to vote again for Donald Trump. He rejects the big lie as a lie. He recognizes the outcome of the 2020 election. He knows Trump lost. He witnessed firsthand Trump's relentless war against that result, no matter the damage to our democratic institutions. Yet he is still onboard with Trump if the former president is on the ballot again.
With his decision to vote again for Trump, Bowers places himself back at the center of his tribe, the Republican Party circa 2022. No longer subject to an angry, hateful campaign conducted by the red team, he finds himself in accord with the vast majority of the GOP's leaders and voters. Donald Trump, so long as he leads the Republican Party, has the loyalty of the party faithful.
I don't believe, in Bowers' decision to vote again for Trump, he has given proper regard to the damage to our fundamental institutions that another Trump presidency would bring. But in making this judgment, he is in agreement with his fellow Republicans. He is back in the fold.
Far too few leaders in the political party that has instigated the war on our country's democratic institutions are willing to step up to put a peaceful end to it. American democracy has never in my lifetime been at greater risk.