This type of rhetoric precisely captures what’s animating a large segment of the Republican Party and the conservative movement: Either “We” win or “They” will destroy America (as a country defined by white Christian rule). Who cares about “democracy”? #GOPextremism
As evidence for how little any of this has to do with Trump, here’s Rod Dreher, a “serious intellectual” who says he abhors the president, professing that opposing the “left” still trumps (ahem...) everything
This Dreher piece is truly something. To him, Trumpism and the “far left” (by which he means the Democratic Party, even Joe Biden) are equally radical - no “moderates” left to choose from. To make clear what a difficult choice he and his fellow conservatives face, he says this:
“As a priest, you might have had big problems with Gen. Franco, but if you didn’t side with him, you stood to be shot by the left-wing Republicans, and have your church burned down. Mind you, nobody’s going to get shot or have their churches burned down here...” I mean, what?
I mean, leave aside this, uhm, questionable portrayal of the Spanish Civil War. But what type of argument is this? “I have to go with the rightwing authoritarian because otherwise I’ll get killed - only of course I won’t... but still!” Huh?
What I find most striking about the position of “socially conservative Christians” like Dreher is how brazenly anti-democratic it is. For him, it all comes down to the judges Trump puts on the bench - who, Dreher hopes, will act as “the only line of defense” against... democracy!
As Dreher puts it, as “the country is going to start voting a lot more liberal as the Boomers die,” he needs those Trump judges to fight against the liberalization of the country. Democracy though? Not something worth protecting, it seems.
Dreher says he has a bad conscience for voting for the moral abomination that is Trump. I just wish he would also reflect more critically on a position that amounts to “If democracy goes against me, I’m gonna go against democracy and with Trump.” He doesn’t. That’s telling.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Been asked so many times: “What do you think will happen?”
We will know a lot more soon. But I do think it’s helpful to clarify expectations. The baseline, for me: Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent. Yet the situation is significantly more dangerous than in 2017.
🧵1/
We must resist the temptation to perpetuate Trump’s constant attempts to assert dominance by reflexively despairing over our supposedly hopeless situation. MAGA desires to project power and strength – something we should subvert rather than confirm. 2/
Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent, and obscuring that distinction is an act of defeatism that only serves the regime. There is a vast gulf between Trump’s authoritarian aspirations on the one hand and the realities of a complex modern state and society on the other. 3/
Sunday reading: Three questions to help us engage Trump’s dangerous outlandishness.
We need to resist the temptation to constantly rage against Trump’s latest antics – while making sure the buffoonery of Trumpism doesn’t obscure how dangerous the situation is (link in bio):
Let’s avoid self-defeating approaches to dealing with Trump. Not much separates raging at his every word from despairing over our supposedly hopeless situation. MAGA desires to project strength – something we should subvert rather than confirm. Let’s not indulge the false bravado
Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent – and obscuring that distinction is an act of defeatism that only serves the regime. There is a vast gulf between Trump’s authoritarian aspirations on the one hand and the realities of a complex modern state and society on the other.
Navigating the Nonsense and Propaganda of Clownish Authoritarianism
Ignoring what Trump says won’t work. Constant outrage is not a viable strategy either. I suggest we ask three questions that can help us engage Trump’s dangerous outlandishness.
New piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about a key challenge of life under clownish authoritarianism: Resisting the temptation to constantly rage against Trump’s latest antics – while making sure the silliness and buffoonery of Trumpism doesn’t obscure how extreme and dangerous the situation is. 2/
Is the “savvy” thing to just ignore his outlandish ramblings? It’s not so easy. The president’s words have power. Let’s not pretend we can neatly separate the “distractions” from “real” politics, as our political reality that has been shaped by Trumpian extremism. 3/
Navigating the Nonsense and Propaganda of Clownish Authoritarianism
Ignoring what Trump says won’t work. Constant outrage is not a viable strategy either. We must find a more productive way to engage Trump’s dangerous outlandishness.
New piece (link in bio):
As we are all facing life under a clownish wannabe-authoritarian, it is worth grappling with the question of how we should calibrate our reactions to Trump. I take his latest press conference and his imperialist threats towards Greenland, Canada, and Panama as an example.
The first question to ask: Whose lives are affected by Trump’s announcements? Unfortunately, because he is the undisputed leader of the Right and the soon-to-be president, there is a high chance his words do have real-world consequences. They are speech acts, fueled by power.
Sunday Reading: The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
This week’s piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I focus on some of Modern Conservatism’s intellectual leaders in the 1950s/60s - Buckley and Bozell, Whittaker Chambers’ diagnosis of liberalism, and Frank Meyer’s view of the civil rights movement - to investigate the origins of a radicalizing dynamic that led to Trumpism. 2/
Crucially, today’s self-identifying “counter-revolutionaries” on the Right do not think they represent a departure – in fact, they claim to be fighting in the name of the *real* essence that defined Modern Conservatism, which in their mind now very much requires radicalism. 3/
The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
This was a beast to write – an attempt to synthesize my thoughts on a question that has shaped the political and historical research on the Right since at least 2016: How did Trumpism come to dominate and define the Right’s politics and identity so quickly and easily? 2/
I focus on some of Modern Conservatism’s intellectual leaders in the 1950s/60s - Buckley and Bozell, Whittaker Chambers’ diagnosis of liberalism, and Frank Meyer’s view of the civil rights movement - to investigate the origins of a radicalizing dynamic that led to Trumpism. 3/