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

Oct 4, 2025
I finished that thing I've been writing.

It looks like I've taken on some big questions.

I've drawn on the work scholars from different fields, including @dannagal, @karen_stenner, and
@LeorZmigrod

1/

terikanefield.com/whyextremismha…
It's sort of long for a blog post. Maybe it’s really a short book.

I asked it, “What do you want to be?” It hasn’t answered, so for now, it’s a blog post.



2/terikanefield.com/whyextremismha…
The conclusions are what I've been trying to say for a long time, but now (I hope) explained better and with more context.

I hope someone finds it interesting and helpful.

3/terikanefield.com/whyextremismha…
Read 4 tweets
Aug 30, 2025
Okay, whew. I've been writing. Some light summer beach reading . . . NOT

I begin with The authoritarian personality, some politics, a story I’ve told before.

I need this because the new stuff requires context, so please stick with me . . .

1/
terikanefield.com/heres-why/
I add new research, new conclusions, and venture into new territory including existence pain and the role of the artist.

Special thanks to @karen_stenner and @LeorZmigrod who helped me pull it together.

Link:

2/ terikanefield.com/heres-why/Image
@karen_stenner @LeorZmigrod also quoted, cited, or critiqued:

Adorno, Theodor
Arendt, Hannah
Chinoy, Sahil
Coleridge, Samuel
Doestoevsky, Fydor
Frenkel-Brunswik, Else
Haidt, Jonathan @JonHaidt
Hand, Learned
Kanai, Ryota
Merritt, Eli
Ledroit, Stephanie . . .

3/
Read 4 tweets
Apr 29, 2024
Everyone will have a different opinion of the strength of the Manhattan criminal case against Trump.

I am offering no opinions on the strength or who will prevail.

I am saying that people are working too hard to explain the case and figure out the legal theory.

1/
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."

2/

terikanefield.com/wheres-the-bee…
The legal theory of the case should be clear.

This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.

Does this mean the prosecution will lose? No.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Mar 11, 2024
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, 2024
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, 2024
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

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!

:(