The extraordinary cowardice of elected Republicans has escaped no one. Under the pretext that the impeachment trial was unconstitutional, which is false, almost all of the Republican elected officials decided to acquit Trump. Are our leaders safe from this kind of cowardice? Unfortunately no.
The best proof of the cowardice of the Republicans has come from their Senate leader, Mitch McConnell. Minutes after the vote, he said Trump was unquestionably responsible for the insurgency. But McConnell adds, the Senate cannot remove a president who is no longer in office. Yet the vast majority of legal experts believe the opposite.
McConnell has turned to the federal courts of justice to prosecute Trump. How long would it take prosecutors to convict Trump? Probably years.
The only explanation that holds up for their decision is cowardice. A spinelessness fueled by the still strong influence of Trump in the Republican Party.
It would be wrong to make fun of elected Republican officials and to assume that acts of political cowardice do not exist in our societies either.
Lack of courage
This is because most elected officials hate to agitate the electorate with controversial issues. Between the media storms that certain positions could trigger and the relative calm of inaction or vague responses, they prefer the seconds. It takes a good dose of courage to admit shocking truths.
How many politicians dare to say that Montreal was never a Mohawk territory?
How many politicians dare to say that the racist excesses of the wokes are American cultural imperialism?
How many politicians dare to explain that religious fundamentalists are dangerous for democracies?
The consequences of such statements are easy to predict.
Do you see Valérie Plante admitting that the Mohawks were not the founders of Montreal? The entire native defense industry would fall on her and she would lose part of the Anglo-Montrealers’ vote. They are in full contrition because of the Indian Act. (But they feel no remorse for the way they have historically treated French-speaking Quebecers).
Do you see Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois explaining that there are at most 300,000 black people in Quebec and that their relative absence from various decision-making bodies is explained in large part by this number, but also by the youth of this population and by their recent arrival in Quebec for a large proportion of them? The QS militant base would never accept these arguments.
Finally, do you hear a lot of politicians in Ottawa questioning the French bill against Islamist separatism? Especially not. Religious fundamentalists provide too many valuable volunteers in federal elections.
Several American elected officials lack courage. But let’s also look in our own garden.