Reading @mashagessen's book, Surviving Autocracy, which helps us understand Trumpism historically and theoretically.
Want to note this passage: Hilter began to consolidate power by restricting the press and "expanding the powers of the police" to "detain people w/out charges."
Gessen makes the point that like "no president before him" Trump views "government with contempt" (30). But it strikes me that contempt for govt has been right-wing ideology since the 80's!
Yet as an ideology that hid the real ways right-wingers just used the govt to transfer wealth upward, contempt for govt was less an expression of intellectual principles and more a justiciation for dismantling the welfare state.
But Trump really *does* have contempt for governance. He exposes how right-wing ideology really does destroy democratic institutions and norms—and how we need those things simply to preserve our economy and citizens' very lives.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So I was supposed to deliver the keynote at a @columbia symposium on climate and language this Friday, but I have informed the organizers that, with true sorrow, I am pulling out because I will not be associated with this university at this political moment.
This was not an easy decision. One of the challenges for climate communication is that #ClimateChange tends to get kicked off the agenda any time anything else happens — part of my mission is to try keep the climate emergency at the foreground of everyone's attention.
2/n
And this event is not a Climate School event: it is a meeting of an ivy-league consortium of foreign-language scholars, who just happen to be convening at Columbia this year — and not even on campus, but at Riverside Church off site.
3/n
I want to say a more about this @SenWhitehouse @RepRaskin @SenateBudget finding, because it is so important to understand the underlying political dynamic.
This kind of collaboration—this normalization of fossil-fuel propaganda through supposedly objective institutions...
This normalization of fossil-fuel propaganda through supposedly objective institutions stands as one of the greatest barriers to phasing out fossil fuels.
2/n
Fossil-fuel ideologies get laundered as ivy-league research (selected and elevated by the ff companies themselves), then get filtered through lobbyists to Congress and through the news media to voters, with the result that...
3/n
This week’s recomendation is to avoid the phrase “reduce emissions” and to start using the phrase “phase out fossil fuels” in its place.
2/n
This advice has a great deal of research behind it, but its importance was highlighted for me this week, when I read a report released by Potential Energy with @YaleClimateComm.
This report really signals a contradiction at the heart of our current climate politics.
3/n
One of the most powerful English professors of the past 40 years stole an argument I made in a seminar presentation, turning it into the core of his next book.
The week after my presentation, he came into the classroom and...
...and he read a conference paper he was going to deliver at the Shakespeare Association that month, re-articulating exactly what I had said about the same material the week before. The 15 or so grad students around the seminar table were dumbfounded. Jaws on the floor.
2/n
It was the classic Trumpy move: do something illegal, but be so blatant about it, trusting that your power gives you immunity, that somehow committing the criminal act manages to normalize it simultaneously.
3/n
Today @WilliamJRipple et al released the 2023 report on the terrifying state of our #climate.
It should be read by every policymaker, decisionmaker, and journalist on the planet.
Here is a thread of some key takeaways.
1/n
"Unfortunately, time is up."
"The rapid pace of change has surprised scientists and caused concern about the dangers of extreme weather, risky climate feedback loops, and the approach of damaging tipping points sooner than expected."
Here is fossil fuel companies' new defense in lawsuits accusing them of deceiving the public about climate change:
They perpetrated no deception, they say, because the "alleged impact of fossil fuel use on the global climate has been ‘open and obvious’ for decades."
1/n
They're calling us stupid, you know.
2/n
I really love the contradiction between the claim that the impact of fossil fuel use on the global climate is "open and obvious" and the adjective "alleged," in "alleged impact."
Talk about wanting to have it both ways! Is the impact obvious, or is it "alleged"?