I've got other things I ought to be doing ... so how about a thread?
When I talk about what contemporary US conservatives are doing (to wit: being f'ing horrible), I'm frequently told, "don't call them conservatives. They are fascists/thugs/racists/etc." Let's talk about that.
The impulse behind the response is to separate what people think of as philosophical conservatism -- small gov't, strong defense, traditional values -- from the kind of incoherent morass of resentments & cruelties we see on the right today.
But that's the wrong way to think about it. The nationalism, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, resentment, cruelty, & lust for authoritarianism did not, at some point, displace conservatism. They are simply what conservatism becomes in the face of demographic change.
At root, conservatism is an impulse of those on the inside -- racially, economically, etc. -- to protect the status quo that privileges them. It is an impulse in every society that has an inside -- ie, all of them.
When the insiders feel comfortable & relatively secure in their position, justifications for the status quo tend to take on a high-minded philosophical character, to express in terms of principles, immutable truths, etc. And when insiders feel secure, they can be *magnanimous*...
... about allowing various Others to enjoy some of society's fruits. This is "compassionate conservatism" & "economic opportunity zones" & etc. "We at the top are broad-minded, we are willing to extend some largesse to the subalterns."
But when the status quo comes under real threat, when the demographic & class groups on the inside feel real pressure, when other groups show signs of obtaining & wielding real power ... the high-mindedness & magnanimity rapidly evaporate.
The more threatened those on this inside feel, the less they invoke principles & philosophy. They revert to their instinctive zero-sum thinking -- every advance for the Other is a loss for them. Efforts to exclude & punish Others become more raw, naked, & cruel.
We're seeing this play out. Principle & policy have all but vanished on the right. (The GOP *has no party platform*.) It has become a cult of power, united behind a strongman, fighting rabidly to prevent the cultural & economic advance of Others. It's all out in the open now.
The notion that something else displaced conservatism is too flattering to conservatism. What we're seeing now is the raw impulses that are *always at the core of conservatism*, in all times & places. This is just what they look like when they are longer confidently on top.
The reason I'm constantly beating this drum is that some people (👋) have been warning about exactly this trajectory for decades now. But mainstream Dems, centrist, pundits, & other VSPs have run interference for conservatism, helped give it a veneer of philosophical legitimacy.
For years & years, WAY too long, they dismissed the raw impulses of conservatism as the "fringe," as though the stuffy, tie-wearing, faux-philosophical, DC-think-tank version were the real thing. They ignored the warning signs & dismissed those who didn't as partisan alarmists.
But now the trajectory is reaching its inevitable conclusion: raw ethnonationalism, violence, & authoritarianism. It is crucial that everyone understands, this is not a break from conservatism. This IS conservatism when the status quo is threatened. This was always it.
So, yeah, I'm gonna keep calling them conservatives. </fin>
Yes, everyone, I'm aware that everything I've ever thought or said about conservatism was said earlier & better by @CoreyRobin, no need to keep reminding me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a great episode of @yourewrongabout, about misinformation, why it ends up affecting older people the most/worst, and why the bulk of it comes from the right. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/los…
One of the grimmest conclusions of the research (which I'm glad Michael highlighted) is that once people are convinced of loopy conspiracy theories, it is almost impossible to talk them out of it. The only way to prevent misinfo from spreading is to prevent exposure.
But how do you prevent exposure? The only way is to have trusted institutions that you can rely on to vet information ("gatekeepers," as I said the other day to much outrage) before it's "out there." Michael gestures at putting more responsibility on the social media cos ...
Some personal news! Friday was my last day at Vox. Today I'm launching a newsletter called Volts, devoted to my twin passions: clean energy and politics. (And I am now, yes, drvolts.)
No, I was not canceled! I do not view editing as tyranny. I'm not fleeing groupthink. I had nothing but positive experiences at @Vox, remain an avid reader, & will be contributing to it regularly going forward. It is growing & expanding & has an *incredible* bench of talent.
It's time for me to be my own boss, pursue my own weird obsessions, and best of all, build a community of people who share those obsessions. I am so excited to get back to the freewheeling spirit of blogging, with more room for experiments, speculation, & conversation.
Don't miss this chipper @JaxAlemany piece about the bright political future ahead for the daughter of an aspiring despot, who got to the WH through nepotism & has accomplished nothing in 4 years but eliciting fawning profiles from gullible journalists. washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…
"I think she's impressive and most people see she's impressive and if she wants to stay involved with politics, people will take her with open arms." For this searing insight, a "former White House official" was granted anonymity.
To imagine Ivanka Trump "impressive," one has to find being a soft-spoken, physically attractive white lady impressive *in & of itself*. It's like performance art: how minimal in substance & accomplishment can a white lady be & still be deemed impressive by white men? Very!
I was just reminded that technically I'm still on vacation for two more days. Based on that info, should I:
All right, I have heard your counsel, and I am ignoring it. Instead, here's another thread on carbon capture & sequestration. (I know this gets tedious, feel free to mute me, but I'm determined to articulate this properly so I shall keep trying.)
Negative emissions technologies (NETs) are absolutely serving as a permission structure to continue emitting GHGs. Just as CCS subsidies in the US will serve as a permission structure to continue politics/business as usual.
All right fine a quick thread on this. The main job of reducing emissions is substituting clean techs for their dirty counterparts -- techs that produce the same goods & services, w/out the CO2 emissions. Some of those alternatives are mature & cheaper already (RE) ...
... while some are at the demonstration or even lab phase. But *even the techs that are mature & cheaper* are proving a challenge to substitute fast enough, because of politics. Again: we're having trouble *substituting something cleaner & cheaper* for the same work.
Extremely feeling this and the entire rant that precedes it. I don't think Tom is fluent in Woke, but the phenomena he's talking about here have names: white innocence & white fragility. Patterns of behavior & rhetoric familiar from, eg, Confederate states in the runup to the CW.
It's always the same. No matter how much cruelty & suffering they impose, however unjust the cultures they build, they are always the victims -- of misunderstanding, of condescension -- and it is always everyone else who's obliged to "reach out" & understand them better.
That's the dumbest part of it. "We need to understand Trump voters better." Guess what? They aren't that fucking complicated! They've told us, through their words & behavior, what motivates them. It's a group dynamic as old as humanity; it dominates US history. We get it!