There needs to be a name for this strategy of projecting emotional solidarity with Trump’s rage tweeting while actually saying something banal that Democrats agree with, and that Trump actually doesn’t agree with. Because *lots* of Republicans are using it.
Still my favorite example. This tweet is so carefully composed to seem like it’s in solidarity with Trump while not actually supporting his claims. It’s art.
Republicans are not going to be able to indulge the stolen election theory now and shut it down later. Their base is just going to go crazier, and they’re going to be pushed into crazier territory to avoid challengers and win primaries.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If we saw the head of the ruling regime, and his party, react to the election results this way in any other country, we'd know exactly what we are looking at.
And I'd say here, too, it's time to be honest and say we know exactly what we are looking at. vox.com/2020-president…
And it's not just Trump. It's a Republican Party that endlessly puts their short-term electoral interests over the stability of the political system.
What we're seeing from Trump and his allies today is an autocratic attempt. It's not a competent one, and it probably won't be an effective one. But that's what it is. And far worse would follow if it succeeded.
As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means." vox.com/2020/7/10/2131…
The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.
"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."
a) Not solve all of America's problems, or even most of them
and
b) Will solve the particular problems created by Donald Trump being President of the United States, and those problems are life-and-death stakes for many, many people
Electing Biden and Harris doesn't mean, for instance, that a climate plan of sufficient scale will pass. But reelecting Trump means one won't.
Electing Biden and Harris doesn't ensure a successful coronavirus response going forward. But reelecting Trump guarantees the continuation of a disastrous one.
I voted today, early, in California. I couldn't use the mail-in ballot because I'd moved between when they sent it and when voting began.
Even so: where I voted, there were no lines. There were extremely helpful volunteers. Everything was clean, safe.
My city, and my state, *wanted* me to vote.
Everything in the experience sent that message. They were trying to make this easy.
If mail was easiest, I could vote by mail. If that didn't work, I could vote in-person. If Tuesday was busy, I could vote early.
Everybody deserves that experience, You shouldn't have to fear sitting four hours in line to vote. You shouldn't have to worry about safety, or being rejected on a technicality, or not being able to make it to pick your kid up from school.
“In moments of extraordinary politics, in moments of transition between eras, the struggle is not to save the old regime, and political hardball is not a permanent status. The struggle is to achieve a new equilibrium.”
[Thread]
It's from @GaneshSitaraman’s “The Great Democracy," and I think it's right: We're in a period in which the kind of political system we will have is being decided.
The hardball will ease when one side or the other wins, and the rules become stable again, at least for awhile.
Republicans understand we're in that period, and are becoming more and more explicit about what that means, and what they want. They fear democracy, the rising power of a more diverse, more secular, more liberal generation.
It's tucked into the middle of my Joe Biden wrap, but I want to highlight this interesting research on polarization from @Beyond_Conflict: Yes, we dehumanize, dislike, and disagree with each other. But not as much as we think we do. vox.com/2020/8/21/2138…
The twist of their polarization index is they ask not just how we feel about the other side, but how we think the other side feels about us.
It turns out that there's a huge gulf — we assume our political opponents loathe and dehumanize us much more than they do.
A caveat to this: Sometimes, the cruder, angrier divisions people perceive are a more accurate reflection of our system than mass opinion.
I'd say that's true now, with Trump's presidency. Perceived polarization and division isn't fake, it's just not the whole story.