Joe Carter (click here for brief bio, Carter's is the 2nd one), has written an article on the insurrectionists who invaded the Capitol on January 6. And though he acknowledges that those who invaded the Capitol consisted of multiple groups, Carter states that they all had the same reason for acting the way they did (click here for the article).
In describing that reason, Carter described a Vietnam anti-war protester who, despite knowing that his method of protesting could hurt the cause, felt compelled to participate in a very disruptive manner. The reason for the disruptive manner of protest was so that he would feel better about himself. In essence he was virtue signaling. To Carter, this was an example of what has been called a 'fantasy ideology' where one adopts a purpose or method of advancing one's own or a group's collective fantasy. And here the fantasy being carried out by the war protester in the example was that he was demonstrating that he was on the right side of history, even if what he was virtue signaling.
In terms of how Carter uses the concept, the protest method used by the man in the illustration, as well as the people who invaded the Capitol was that it was a meaningless attempt at doing something dramatic to show their own righteousness.
I have problems with Carter's analysis but let's first acknowledge what I can fully agree with. Carter is critical of those who further the election fraud narrative. To Carter, some know that they are promoting a lie about election fraud. Also, Carter rightly criticizes the churches for tolerating the conspiracy theories and lies about the election. And such points are very important to make because many people, especially fellow Christians, are firmly convinced of those lies and conspiracies.
But where I feel Carter's analysis needs correction is in his reducing the motive or perception of those protesters of why they invaded the Capitol and acted the way they did. Carter acknowledges that there are multiple groups who participated in that invasion. And if there were multiple gruops who participated, then surely there can be multiple motives and perceptions of how effective such a protest can be than to say that they participated in a fantasy ideology.
In that crowd there were QAnon people, people who protested the alleged stealing of the election, and people who thought they were stopping the advancement of socialism--something Carter is very critical and has an overly simplistic view of. Did all those participants believe that they were hurting the cause by invading the Capitol but did so to show their own personal or group false agenda? To answer that question, we might want to divide the participants of that invasion into two groups: the foot soldiers and the leadership.
The foot soldiers carried out the invasion. Here we should note that there were a variety of foot soldiers who stepped into the Capitol. There were those who acted like tourists, those who participated juvenile vandalism, those who committed significant damage to parts of the building, and those who were violent or called for violence against others. Some who entered the Capitol were armed with weapons. And there was one thing that was clear, with how the violent group was prepared, it appears that they went in there with a limited mission.
As for the leaders, including Donald Trump, it seems that what they wanted the foot soldiers to accomplish was to intimate Congress and the Vice President out of accepting the election results. In fact, a few of those foot soldiers wanted to do more than just intimidate Congress and the Vice President, they wanted to hurt or kill them.
This attempt to undo the election might have been a long shot, but it wasn't a fantasy to those leaders who were imploring the foot soldiers to be strong, to undergo 'trial by combat,' and to 'kick ass.'
In addition, threats of greater violence in the future, especially by some white supremacist groups, indicate that some were initiating a war with their own specific objectives. One objective I've heard white supremacists express is that they want their own nation. And to get that, contiguous states would have to secede from the Union. Considering that some Texas state politicians are advancing that idea for Texas, then I wouldn't attribute the invasion of the Capitol to just a single cause or fantasy. All of that demonstrates why Carter's analysis is overly simplistic.
I am happy with Carter's rejection of the invasion of the Capitol, the election fraud lies used to spur the invasion force, and am happy with his criticism of the churches for not taking a stand against the lies that some of their own members have eagerly believe. But what happened on January 6 could be pointing to an emerging menace that is far more significant than fantasy. And if we factor in how civil unrest has historically been used in the past, especially by our own country, to produce regime change, we might be dealing with something far more dangerous than doomed attempts to advancing a fantasy or people trying to prove themselves to both themselves and others.
Referneces
- https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/fantasy-ideology-american-insurrectionists/
- https://www.phc.edu/journalism-faculty
see second person
No comments:
Post a Comment