In the recent vice-presidential debate, J.D. Vance found himself in a contentious exchange regarding former President Donald Trump’s actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021. His defense of Trump centered around the claim that the former president had urged his supporters to “peacefully protest.” However, Vance’s argument conveniently glossed over the broader context and implications of Trump’s speech that day.

On January 6, 2021, Trump delivered a lengthy address at the Ellipse, just a stone’s throw from the Capitol where Congress was set to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Starting with fierce accusations against “radical left Democrats” and the “fake news media,” Trump implored his supporters to fight back against what he described as a stolen election. “We will never give up. We will never concede,” he asserted, laying the groundwork for what would transpire later that day.

While Vance pointed to Trump’s solitary mention of the word “peacefully,” he overlooked the overall tone and content of the speech. Trump repeatedly emphasized the need for strength and resistance, admonishing Republicans who he deemed “weak” and hinting at retribution against them if they did not “fight” for him. His rhetoric did not simply invite protest; it incited a call to arms.

The stark contradiction in Vance’s narrative illustrates a troubling trend among some conservatives: a selective recounting of history to suit political ambitions. After Trump’s speech, the result was a violent insurrection. Supporters stormed the Capitol, clashed with law enforcement, and disrupted the certification of electoral votes. In light of these events, Vance’s assertion appears more like an attempt at historical revisionism rather than a genuine analysis of Trump’s influence.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell articulated a contrasting view shortly after the events unfolded, condemning Trump for provoking what he labeled as an act of “terrorism.” He noted, “Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.” McConnell’s remarks resonate with those who view January 6 not as a mere protest but as a direct assault on the democratic process.

Moreover, Vance’s defense drew parallels to past political protests, invoking Hillary Clinton’s post-2016 election commentary regarding Russian interference. However, this comparison fails under scrutiny. Clinton conceded her defeat within a day of the election, recognizing the legitimacy of the process despite her own reservations about external influence. By contrast, Trump refused to accept the outcome and actively sought to undermine it, leading to the chaotic events of January 6.

As conservatives navigate the murky waters of Trump’s legacy, it is imperative to confront uncomfortable truths rather than resorting to convenient narratives. The challenge for the party is to define itself in a way that aligns with its foundational principles—respect for democracy, rule of law, and accountability. Vance’s reliance on selective memory might rally some factions, but it ultimately detracts from the more profound ideals that conservatives should aspire to uphold.

In conclusion, engaging in honest discourse about January 6 is essential for the integrity of the Republican Party and the nation as a whole. Acknowledging the complexities of that day—and Trump’s role in it—will be crucial in shaping a conservative vision that honors the principles of liberty and justice for all. Instead of revisionist history, we need a commitment to truth and a determination to learn from the past as we move forward.