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
Sunday reading: Why the Extremists Took Over on the Right
I wrote about the escalating sense of besiegement that has fueled the rise of dangerous people and truly radical ideas that fully define the Right today.
This week’s piece (link below):
We have been talking a lot - and with good reason - about the “crisis of liberal democracy.” But in crucial ways, it is the conception of “real America” as a white Christian patriarchal homeland that has come under enormous pressure. That’s why the Right is freaking out.
Socially, culturally, and – most importantly, perhaps – demographically, the country has moved away from the rightwing ideal since the middle of the twentieth century. As a result, the conservative hold on power has become tenuous.
Fear of a pluralizing America is fueling a radicalization out of a sense of weakness and besiegement.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link below):
🧵
What is America? Who gets to belong? How much democracy, and for whom? Those have always been contested issues. But the fact that this struggle now overlaps so clearly with party lines is the result of a rather recent reconfiguration.
That is the fundamental reality of U.S. politics: National identity and democracy have become partisan issues. This existential dimension of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans overshadows all other considerations, it shapes all areas of U.S. politics.
In the MAGA imagination, America is simultaneously threatened by outsiders – invaders who are “poisoning the blood” of the nation, as Trump has put it – and by the “enemy within.” The core promise of Trumpism is to purge those inherently connected “threats.”
To the Trumpists, the “enemy within” - those radical “leftists” and “globalists” – are as acutely dangerous as the invaders from without.
In order to restore the nation to former glory, to Make America Great Again, it has as to be “purified” – the enemies have to be purged.
According to the Trumpists, only the providential leader can guide the nation to its re-birth and former glory – “Only I,” Trump loves to say. The rightwing base is all in on this, fiercely loyal to Trump personally, bound to him by a cult of personality.
What does the U.S. look like in five or ten years?
I was asked to reflect on this question, alongside other scholars. In a stable democracy, the range of plausible outcomes is narrow. But for America, it now includes complete democratic breakdown.
There should not have been any doubt about the intention of the Trumpists. They desire to erect a form of plebiscitary autocracy, constantly invoking the true “will of the people” while aggressively narrowing the boundaries of who gets to belong and whose rights are recognized.
At every turn, the response to the rise of Trumpism has been hampered by a lack of political imagination – a lingering sense that “It cannot happen here” (or not anymore), fueled by a deep-seated mythology of exceptionalism, progress gospel, and willful historical ignorance.
I wrote about why even critical observers underestimated the speed and scope of the Trumpist assault, why they overestimated democratic resilience – about what America is now, and what comes next?
New piece (link below)
I take stock of where we are after two months of Trumpist rule, explore that space between (no longer) democracy and full-scale autocracy where America exists now, reflect on what competitive authoritarianism means in theory and practice, and recalibrate my expectations.
I revisit “The Path to Authoritarianism,” a crucial essay Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way published in Foreign Affairs in early February. It captured their expectations at the outset of the Trumpist regime – a powerful warning that has nevertheless been overtaken by events already.
People who claim Zelensky was at fault yesterday and should have been more “diplomatic” or “respectful” are either deliberately propagating the Trumpist attack line – or they fundamentally misunderstand what the Trumpist project is and who is now in power in the United States.
There is this pervasive idea that Trump doesn’t really mean it, has no real position, and can therefore be steered and manipulated by tactical and diplomatic finesse; or maybe he’s just a businessman looking for a great deal. But that’s all irrelevant here.
Trump himself has been very consistent about his preference for foreign autocrats, especially Putin, and his (at best) disinterest and siding with Ukraine and (actually) explicit antagonism towards not only Zelensky, but Europe’s democracies more generally.