Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Aug 27, 2019 22 tweets 12 min read Read on X
(Thread) Destruction was the Point

Hi, Jillian.

I’m not conservative, but I think I can explain.

GOP leadership knew they were lying when they said Obama unethically profited from a book written after he left office.

They also knew birtherism was a lie.
@BrodiePiper
@BrodiePiper 1/Some members of the GOP believe all the lies.

Most—like Joe Walsh—pretended to believe the lies because they knew the lies were destructive.

And they wanted to destroy.

Trump—a human wrecking ball—is the natural result of 50 years of GOP destructiveness.
@BrodiePiper 2/ Why did they want to destroy?

Scholars Oliver Hahl, Minjae Kim, and Ezra W. Zickerman Sivan, in “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue,”
explain:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
People who want to destroy the "political establishment" experienced a "crisis of legitimacy”
@BrodiePiper 3/ This “crisis of legitimacy” happens when people no longer believe the political establishment serves “real” Americans (like them) and instead champions the interests of “others.”

Obama was, to them, the symbol of a political establishment gone wrong.

So they lied about him.
@BrodiePiper 4/ When reactionaries lie, they justify the lie by saying that the lie points out an important truth⤵️

Birtherism points out an important "truth": Obama wasn’t a “real” American.

"Obama was corrupt" also pointed out what they saw as an important truth:
@BrodiePiper 5/ Obama—because of who he was (educated, intelligent, competent, and black)—symbolized a world turned upside down.

I understand it this way.

There are two views of American history, the liberal view and reactionary view.

I mean “liberal” as in ⤵️
@BrodiePiper 6/ The liberal view of American history goes like this:

America started out with some good ideas, but unfortunately, they only applied to a small group: well-educated white men.

Then, over 250 years—through the heroic efforts of great men and women like Susan B. Anthony . . .
@BrodiePiper 7/ . . . Thurgood Marshall, MLK Jr, and others—“we the people” expanded to include more and more people.

The transition from the top image to the lower image was good thing, bringing us close to the ideal of liberal democracy.

View #2: The Reactionary View, is the opposite.
@BrodiePiper 8/ According to this view, America, in 1789, was orderly and good with lots of personal liberty.

For reactionaries, 250 years of American history is the story of something being lost, something vital being taken away from them.

The past was good. The frontier was wide open!
@BrodiePiper 9/ If you wanted land, just grab it!

There weren't many laws, so people (white men) could do what they wanted.

MAGA = take America back to those days.

How do they reconcile white-male-rule with “we the people” and democracy?

They don't like democracy. They say things like ⤵️
@BrodiePiper 10/ They think nature forms a hierarchy & white men belong on top: white women and other races are better off under the dominion of white men.

John Calhoun, U.S. Vice President under Andrew Jackson, explained that slavery is a “positive good"
teachingamericanhistory.org/library/docume…
@BrodiePiper 11/ According to this view, since 1789 others have been encroaching on the personal liberty of white men, and upsetting the balance.

Liberals see the New Deal as good: minimum wage, social security, the VA bill helped eliminate income inequality and created opportunity for all.
@BrodiePiper 12/ Reactionaries see such legislation as an evil encroachment on "personal liberty."

Minimum wage, according to this view, infringes on the liberty of people to enter contracts. If a person is willing to work for 2 cents an hour, that's none of the government's business.
@BrodiePiper 13/ Reactionaries have been trying to roll back the New Deal.

They hate all the government regulations put in place in the past 100 years.

You can't roll a country backwards and get rid of regulations and regulatory agencies without being destructive.
@BrodiePiper 14/ Nancy McClean in ⤵️ talks about the rage felt by many when the Supreme Court in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) held that segregation in schools was illegal.

People were furious that the Supreme Court would try to tell people how to live their lives.
@BrodiePiper 15/ The Civil Rights movement (ignited by Brown v. Board) and the women's rights movement threw the reactionaries into a destructive panic.

In response, the GOP turned into a full-on authoritarian / reactionary party. See⤵️


And here we are.

End/
@BrodiePiper Timothy Snyder explains ⤵️

Liberals over the past few decades bought into a myth, which goes like this:

The future has been determined: America will continue becoming more inclusive and diverse.

History is a river carrying us along . . .
@BrodiePiper . . . we don't even have to row. (This is what Snyder calls the Politics of Inevitability)

When the myth breaks—when, for example, Russia selected our president in 2016, a president trying to undo all the progress of the past 50 years— liberals are shocked.

They believed . . .
@BrodiePiper . . . Jim Crow, the KKK, etc, were forever relegated to the fringes.

Politics of Inevitability took away responsibility. (We don't even have to row!)

The shock ("this is all new!") combined with giving up responsibility explains why so many people feel helpless dispair.
@BrodiePiper Sources for @TimothyDSnyder's ideas, this book⤵️

Or if you prefer a lecture, this one . . .

. . . contains his key ideas.

His point: Transitioning from a Politics of Inevitability to a Politics of Responsibility is the key to saving Democracy.
@BrodiePiper @TimothyDSnyder All my threads are blog posts. You can see this one here: terikanefield-blog.com/two-views-of-a…
@BrodiePiper @TimothyDSnyder I've also started posting my threads to an author facebook page, if anyone prefers that: facebook.com/terikanefielda…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Mar 11
Finished. (Whew)

As promised, all about Legal pundits and the Outrage Industry, with a few cherished conspiracy theories carefully debunked.

Click here to start:

For years, I was perplexed by what I saw on Twitter. . .

1/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
It seemed to me that the dynamics of social media were making people more authoritarian.

Then I started reading experts in political communication and it all started making sense.


2/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
I wrote parts 1 - 5 in November. I thought I was finished, but I wasn't.

There were still things I didn't understand.

Writers often write to understand, so I kept reading, thinking, and writing.



3/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Whew! I finished.



Everything I promised: How to listen (or not listen) to legal pundits.

It's also about what is dangerous about the entire industry of punditry, speculation, and cable talk shows.

1/terikanefield.com/invented-narra…

For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.

I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."

Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.

I read these books and light bulbs went on.

3/ Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 2
If Trump can win with everything we know about him, what make people think a finding of guilt would change that?

It makes no sense.
Also what if the jury acquits? It can happen.

I do recall the same people thought impeachment and indictment would cause Trump to crumble.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"

We saw the J6 committee findings.

Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."

2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"

A lot of people do.

People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.

I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .

3/
Read 6 tweets
Feb 29
The news takes 2 minutes to convey.

"Here is what the court did." That is news.

Listening to people speculate about why the court did it and what it means is not news.

It is entertainment.

But it is a special kind of entertainment.

1/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.

But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.

2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.

Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:

3/terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Read 5 tweets
Feb 29
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.

1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."

In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.

2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).

I explained that wouldn't happen.

Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.

3/
Read 4 tweets
Feb 29
I spent 5 years writing FAQ pages and "talking people off the ledge" each time there was a collective meltdown.

I stopped doing that because it is never-ending.

I keep saying the same things over and over.

1/
In 2021, when people were demanding indictments, I said, "Indictments are the start of a long harrowing process."

I explained that trials are harrowing.

Judges make bad decisions.

Juries don't always get it right. A person can be guilty but be acquitted.

2/
I told people to stop thinking that the criminal justice system will solve a political problem.

Eventually, I came to believe that the 10% of people who are "highly engaged" with politics are the least informed.

They will always be in a misinformation-outrage cycle.

3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(