A quick word on WHY this is dumb, to connect it to something I've been thinking about. One thing you learn when you study religion & philosophy in school is, basically, how to argue. One of the key things to learn is that arguments, any argument, only make sense ...
... relative to shared premises. Part of arguing is digging down to find those shared premises & then figuring out where, downstream of them, you divert from your interlocutor. Without shared premises, you're literally not arguing, you're just saying words at each other.
Sometimes you have to go pretty far down to find those premises. "There is a world." "Human welfare is the goal of human society." Things like that.
It seems to me a big part of what's happened over the last few years/decades of US politics is that the left ...
... has slowly (SO slowly) come to the realization that the right does not share many of the premises it takes for granted. Democracy is good; voter participation should be maximized; rule of law is more important than the advantage of any particular faction; etc.
It can be extremely disorienting. Like, you're arguing about the details of some North Carolina voter disenfranchisement scheme, assuming that *of course* deliberate voter suppression is bad, *of course* it's better if every eligible voter votes, thinking your interlocutor...
...is just confused about the mechanisms of the law, or mistaken about the prevalence of voter fraud, or some such. It's vertiginous to realize that, no, they really don't think certain voters should vote; they really do think GOP victories are more important than full democracy.
You can kind of see this (*finally*) happening across the Dem establishment, the slow realization that what they had taken as fundamental precepts of the US political system are in fact *not* shared premises. The right is not unaware or mistaken about what it's doing.
Anyway, to bring this back around, the entire mental model of the US political parties as two sides, with a coherent middle, is based on this unspoken assumption of shared premises. But if there are no shared premises -- or rather, if the shared premises are so far down ...
... that they consist in things like "there is a world" -- then the "center" is vapor. It has no political content.
Shorter: in a fight between law-bound democracy & ethnonationalist minority rule, there is no coherent center. Pretending there is just obscures the truth. </fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is just one way that the entire system is set up to ensure 50/50 results. It's homeostatic -- if one side starts to do well, systems (journalism, polling, PAC money) move into action to balance it.
If you get a poll leaning in one direction, it prompts polls leaning in the other direction. If one side's rich people create a substantial spending advantage, the other side's rich people ratchet up their spending.
And above all: if there's a Puerto-Rico-joke PR disaster on one side, it prompts effusive "Biden gaffe" coverage on the other side.
This homeostasis is not the result of any grand conspiracy, it's just an outcome of politics infused with money & treated like a reality show.
I'm glad I don't have to write an endorsement piece, because I really wouldn't know how to go about it. Ever since 2015, when Trump descended the escalator, I have had the same feeling, which I've never quite seen articulated, so I will briefly try:
It's basically this: Trump is so obviously, manifestly repugnant -- his words, his gestures, his behavior, his history -- that it strikes me like a tsunami. It's a kind of total, perfect, seamless repugnance that I've never witnessed before in my life. Which means ...
... pointing out some particular piece of the repugnance & arguing against it feels ... surreal, I guess. "He has regularly sexually assaulted women, almost certainly raped a few, and ... I think that's bad."
Yeah. I mean, I think rape is bad. But here's the thing ...
Christ, reading anything about the rise of Hitler is so unsettling these days. The key thing is that there was nothing inevitable about it -- he rose to power thanks to a few thoughtless decisions by the small, feckless men around him. Sound familiar?
Goebbels, 1928: "The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction."
It's also chilling to read how many times the Nazis failed before they succeeded -- they were broke & unpopular in the early 1930s -- and how many times they were written off. Hitler dismissed all these press reports as a "witch hunt." Sound familiar?
Bezos is just doing what the entire US elite has done for years, what many many center-left pundits still do constantly: contemplate the results of a coordinated 60-year assault on media (& other mainstream institutions) from the right & conclude a) this is our fault, and ...
... b) if we cringe more, indulge in even more self-hatred, blunt accuracy even more in the name of "balance," bend over farther backward, we can reclaim the trust of people who have said, clearly, for decades now, that they want us dead & gone, not improved.
You see the heads of institution after institution -- social media, academia, etc. -- submit to this same shit. It's difficult to tell which of them are actually dumb enough to fall for it & which of them secretly agree with the RW, but either way the result is the same.
Thank you @Mike_Podhorzer for writing this so that I feel slightly less insane. The US is on the verge of real, bona fide, violent fascism of the sort we gawk at in history books and, to a first approximation, our civic leaders don't seem that worried. weekendreading.net/p/sleepwalking…
We are, in other words, sleepwalking our way into fascism *exactly the same way previous countries have sleepwalked their way into fascism*. Exactly. All the same beats, the same dynamics, the same rhetoric. We have learned NOTHING from history. It's just fucking amazing.
Nothing makes me want to simultaneously laugh & puke these days quite like the phrase "never again." Everyone says that in the wake of every fascist atrocity, with great solemnity, and yet we do it again. And again. We're doing it again right fucking now.
This quote from Trump captures the beating heart of reactionary authoritarianism better than anything I've ever seen: "I think it is a threat. I think everything is a threat. There is nothing that is not a threat."
That is not a conclusion drawn from evidence, it is ...
... reflective of deep psychological, even neurological, structures. For whatever reason -- genetics, early childhood development, whatever -- Trump has been left with hyperactive "sensitivity to threat," as they call it. Everything else issues from that.
High sensitivity to threat yields the classic authoritarian personality: averse to ambiguity or uncertainty; attracted to simplicity & clear lines between in groups & out groups; selfishness & an assumption that *everyone* is selfish & only threat of punishment maintains order.