In @ruthbenghiat's excellent article, she addresses (among other things) how people like Lindsay Graham’s abruptly converted from fervent Trump critic to staunch Trump defender.
nybooks.com/daily/2020/08/…
h/t @kenkincc
Authoritarians wouldn’t get very far if those in power didn’t first lend them credibility, and then support and shield them.
nybooks.com/daily/2020/08/…
For reasons explained by @stuartpstevens, the GOP was ready for an autocrat and therefore happy to oblige. (See my summaries beginning here: )
For those still puzzled about Graham’s conversion, read the whole paragraph:
As a rule, these “enablers” back the extremist when he most needs it—and he later discards them. (See Jeff Sessions)
nybooks.com/daily/2020/08/…
This is why nothing moves the needle: including Trump knowing that Putin put bounty on American soldiers, the death of 170,000 Americans, etc.
The pattern with autocrats is that they place their own financial interests and “private relationships with other depots over national interests.
The fact that 40% still back Trump has more to do with the well-oiled right-wing propaganda machine.
Rule of law (democracy) requires truth, whereas a leadership cult is based on lies.
(Three forms of government, from sociologist Max Weber archive.org/details/weber_…)
In addition to the arguments I've made in the links I will give you, there are two problems with the "they're blackmailed" theory.
To leap from those facts to a blackmail theory (which people insist is true) requires a few leaps.
Now, for a few threads.
@stuartpstevens, a former GOP insider, knows these people well.
terikanefield-blog.com/it-was-all-a-l…
Now read this post (it's also a thread somewhere) :terikanefield-blog.com/no-the-entire-…
Now, the two problems with spreading this theory are:
💠 there is no evidence, only speculation, to back it up.
💠 holding this theory means that we fail to understand what is really happening.
The blackmail theory assumes that 'but for' the blackmail, they'd do the right thing, that only blackmail keeps them on the dark side.
Go watch some clips of Lindsay Graham and Pence eagerly lynig for Trump and ask yourself honestly: "is this how a blackmailed person would behave?"
Blackmail can keep people silent.
It doesn't create true believers.
Good and honorable people cannot imagine anyone willingly embracing Trump and everything he stands for.
They assume that nobody would do that unless they were being blackmailed.
Facing the truth (pure evil) is just too horrifying, so good and honorable people retreat from it.
They support Trump because they want to. Then once they support him, they're trapped because of their fears.
Again speculating on whether there is blackmail causes not to look at how an autocrat actually does co-opt people.
Even if, perhaps, one GOP official is so afraid of whatever embarrassing thing Trump has on him that he'll betray his ideals . . .all of them?
Go back and watch the impeachment hearings.
The GOP grandstanders were true believers.
People in the comments are still insisting that Graham and others do Trump's bidding because they're blackmailed.
Do that, and you'll never understand the GOP.
Here's the logical fallacy behind the "kompromat" they has to do with causation . . .
💠Republican servers were hacked.
💠Lindsay Graham does a quick about face.
The fallacy is to assume that one caused the other.
They may not be related. The two events may becaused by a third occurrence.
(It's late. Not sure I explained that well)
One event is factual (the GOP kiss Trump's ring)
One is speculation (Russians & Epstein have extensive files) . . .
💠My husband knows secrets about me that would embarrass me if he told them.
💠I go out of my way to be nice to him.
The first doesn't cause the second.
If you have two theories: One supported by evidence, and one supported by speculation, which is stronger?