I have written about the events of the week wherein Senator Padilla (D-CA) was removed from a press conference, wrestled to the ground, and handcuffed.
I recognize that people interpret what they see in divergent ways and that one’s political predispositions influence what they see. Some, no doubt, are aware that I am not a supporter of the Trump administration and that, therefore, this colors my views of this event. No doubt, I am not predisposed to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.
Having said that, it remains wholly unclear to me in what universe it is appropriate for a US Senator to be treated like this.
If Ted Cruz, a member of the Senate of whom I am not a fan, had been rude to the previous DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, in a similar fashion and had then been treated like this I would have first probably had a hit of partisan dopamine and then I would have been quite unhappy about it, because it isn’t appropriate.
At a minimum, if one wants to escape as best one can the thralls of a partisan dopamine addiction, one needs to step out and look at events in a more dispassionate and less time-bound fashion (i.e., what general rule would you apply if the partisan labels were unknown?). It seems to me that it is a reasonable rule to state that if a US Senator asks a somewhat disruptive question of a Department Secretary at a press event in the Federal Building, that shoving and cuffing is not the appropriate response.
Would any reasonable person train the FBI and Secret Service to behave as happened in this case?
I can certainly see the view that Padilla was trying to hijack Noem’s press conference. You want to say he was being performative. Fine. You want to assert that he was being rude. I can see that even if I think it is a bit of a stretch.
Do we shove and cuff rude people?
Put another way: is force the appropriate response in this situation?
And please consider: what is the message this specific type of force is supposed to convey?
By the way, if you want to say he was engaging in civil disobedience, I have to counter with the question as to what is illegal about asking a question at a press event?
The notion that he was presenting as a threat or as some random person is undercut by the video and by context.
I think it is really important to remember that this was not taking place in the middle of nowhere. It was in a controlled environment (the Federal Building in Los Angeles) wherein anyone in the room would have already gone through security.
Padilla states he had a security escort.
He identified himself.
He was wearing a US Senate shirt.
He has been a US Senator since 2021.
He has been a statewide elected official since 2015 (Secretary of State).
He has been in LA politics since 1999.
It is simply an untenable notion that he was thought to be some rando in that room.
I find it utterly implausible that any US Senator visiting a government building in one of the major cities in their state would be utterly anonymous in such a room.
I am dwelling on this event because it is relatively straightforward and easy to understand. There is video, and the basic details shouldn’t be in dispute. The event has at least two educational possibilities.
One, which is the most important, is to hopefully get some people to start opening their eyes to the general ethos of this administration. It is one that wants compliance and will use force to get it. So, I would hope that understanding this event would cause some marginal supporters to reassess their support. Conversely, maybe some supporters will realize that, in fact, they like it when their team enforces compliance, which at least lends some moral (or immoral) clarity to the situation.
A second educational possibility is that this, again, helps us see how partisanship leads to rationalizations.
All of that is a much, much longer preface to what I thought was going ot be just a post about some Twitter examples.
But here we go.
These are some examples of people who are all helping defend the shoving and cuffing of a US Senator.
This is how we slide towards valorizing forced compliance and therefore toward authoritarianism.
Here’s one of Padilla’s colleagues defending the event.
First, it is an utter lie that Padilla did not announce himself. Second, he did not lunge. Third, I honestly doubt that the pin would have been the magic talisman to forestall the assault. Third, I have paid attention to national politics since I was in elementary school, and studying politics has been my life’s work. I am not sure I have ever heard about this pin until this week, and if I did, it made no impression on me of any consequence. I once met Senator Sessions when he was still in the Senate. I do not recall a pin. But man, have I heard a ton of people claiming that if he had just had the pin, none of this would have happened!
Here’s Steven A. Smith, a sports commentator who has, of late, been flirting with politics.
This will play, dare I say bigly, with Trump supporters. The cynic in me sees Steven A. as being maybe bored with sports and sees a Joe Rogan-like lane for himself. But sure, let’s try and build a media, and maybe an electoral, future on fascistic tactics. I mean, if it gets the clicks, who cares?
Anyone who knows his oeuvre knows how hilarious it is for Smith to be taking the moral high ground on not interrupting people.
Here’s Brit Hume of FNC.
Of course, the obvious retort is “Imagine the reaction from Republicans and their media allies” if this had happened to Ted Cruz or any other member of the Republican Party (and rightly so!). I mean, geez, Brit, apply your own logic here.
But the whole downplaying of it all, “relatively obscure” and “weekend dress,” is just trying to give excuses for objectively bad behavior.
Here’s Dean Cain, who I know is known Trumper.
What gets me about this is that he is the one actually trying to do the gaslighting. There. Is. Video. He identified himself, and I outlined the context above. But, again, this is just a smokescreen for what should be utterly unacceptable behavior.
All of these examples, and more, are ultimately in support of and, worse, help segments of the public support the use of force against political opponents on trivial, pretexual grounds.
This is not healthy and moves us clearly in an authoritarian direction.
Let me conclude with this from DHS right after the event.
First, note that Tuberville is just aping this tweet. Gotta follow the party line, dontcha know.
Second, again with the lying. He clearly identified himself.
Third, the assertion here is that being “disrespectful” is ground for shoving an cuffing. That doesn’t sound like a democracy to me. It surely doesn’t sound like respect for the First Amendment. Indeed, it sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship.
Comply, or face the consequences.
A final thought from political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucian Way:
When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy.
How many people saw National Guard and Marine deployments in LA and therefore decided not to go to the protests in their towns?
How many people see a US Senator being cuffed and therefore think twice about questioning those in power?
If someone in a clear position of authority is cuffed for asking someone else in authority a question, what chance do the rest of us have?
