The U.S. House of Representatives cast an important vote this past week by approving a commission to look into the causes of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

It surprised me that the vote wasn’t bi-partisan. A large majority of Republican lawmakers voted against it, while 35 defied their party’s stance.

If anything could lead to agreement between the parties, I think it should happen when it comes to security at federal landmarks. The events of Jan. 6 proved that there’s an extensive network of fringe group members who’d want to organize a violent confrontation.

There’s a need for a process like what was undertaken by the Warren Commission after the Kennedy assassination and after the 911 attacks.

The Capitol riot produced the same kind of shock from millions of people throughout the world. I almost couldn’t believe that there were people invading the Capitol, clashing with Capitol police and claiming that they did it because former President Trump asked them.

The loss of life, the destruction of property, and the dishonor shown to our traditions of freedom shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It’s important to explore why the event transpired; how it was organized, why the government wasn’t prepared and why there was a delay in a response.

So the question becomes, why some lawmakers wouldn’t vote in favor of a commission? If they have concerns about how it would operate, those could be addressed with a set of proposals from the Republican caucus, something more than just voting no.

It appears that they’re concerned it might turn into a further attempt to blame former President Trump. It would all depend on the fact-finding.

It’s possible that a commission will conclude that the former President, like many others, expected a peaceful rally attended by law abiding, patriotic citizens. Perhaps no one in a position of authority was hesitant or negligent by not responding more quickly.

I’d be satisfied if that becomes the end result of a detailed process. It would be similar to how the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that he wasn’t an agent for powerful people either in America or in foreign countries.

The main thing is to do a complete job of finding out the causes of the riot. We know that the Internet provides a convenient avenue for fringe groups to talk with each other, to come up with ways they might try to advance their causes. It’s important that federal intelligence agencies have the resources they need to counter those threats.

How do they go about determining if the communication is just talk or if it’s a real concern?

Do they need more funding?

Is there a need for more forms of policing the Internet?

It’s good to be proactive, to try to stay ahead of any domestic terrorism scheme. We can’t just sit back and wait for things to possibly happen, not with 50 state capitol buildings and hundreds of other government owned locations that might be targeted.

Hopefully Senate action coming up in a few days will produce some kind of a bi-partisan agreement on the need for a commission. It’s the best way to understand the problems that occurred on Jan. 6.

It’s also a good way to scale back on the hard core partisanship that became worse than ever in the past several years. There are signs that it might be overcome. It should occur before Americans continue to lose faith in the tradition of a two-party system. A multi-party approach with coalition governments would have its own set of potential pitfalls.

There’s a need to work together when it comes to the COVID recovery, investment in the future and ensuring peaceful living conditions. Maybe a better understanding of the Capitol riot could be a valuable step in that direction.