Bret Stephens. After lending credence to racist ideas about Jews promoted by white supremacist “race science” last week, he casually perpetuates the myth of the “clean” Wehrmacht by referring to Erwin Rommel as a “worthy adversary” in his latest column./1
As @DavidAstinWalsh points out in this great thread, it takes quite the mixture of laziness and ignorance to not know and understand how thoroughly debunked this myth of the honorable and respectable German fighting force is – and has been for decades./2
@DavidAstinWalsh I’m also struck by the ways in which Stephens evokes Nazism and the Second WW. Think back to August, when he equated someone mocking him on Twitter with Goebbels, and the criticism he received with the dehumanization of Jews as prelude to genocide./3
@DavidAstinWalsh It’s not only uninformed – it’s also entirely opportunistic and in bad faith. Not only does he not have a firm grasp of what he’s talking about, he also clearly doesn’t care. In his columns, history – even that of genocide and total war – is just a convenient prop./4
@DavidAstinWalsh There’s never any deeper reflection inspired by the past to be found, no honest questioning of the present derived from past example. Stephens obviously thinks citing the past makes him sound educated, and evoking Nazism is supposed to give weight to his nonsense. That’s it./5
@DavidAstinWalsh At this point, it’s simply disgraceful for the NYT to hold on to this man. I also want to mention, again, how unconscionable it is for Germany’s leading weekly magazine @DIEZEIT to provide Stephens with an additional platform./6
@DavidAstinWalsh@DIEZEIT It shows how much harm the NYT is causing by championing Stephens, and not just to the political discourse in America. Internationally, Stephens is just known/presented as an acclaimed “NYT columnist,” which guarantees a huge audience. What a joke. /end
• • •
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/