For those asking, I underestimated Trump and I overestimated Republicans, although I'm glad to see that they've finally come around. If anyone is interested in engaging in good faith, this is what I wrote in November and this is still what I believe now: wisdomofcrowds.live/crisis-of-perm…
The Republican Party violated one of my only non-negotiables: the sanctity of democratic outcomes. And I won't forget that. But I also won't waver on this fundamental commitment. I believe, if anything, that it's more important than ever
It's telling that some of my critics, such as @jbouie, have used today's tragic events to attack me in bad faith and smugly say "I told you so." It says something about their priorities. They're also wrong. This was not a coup by any accepted definition of the word
These people wouldn't know a coup if it hit them in the head. I've lived in countries where coups actually happened and where hundreds were massacred by security forces as a result. I've studied coups, in part because I saw the damage they did to the country of my parents
Fortunately, there's a whole political science literature on coups.
"Under the standard definition in political science, a coup attempt involves an illegal, overt effort by civilian or military elites to remove a sitting executive from power"
It does a disservice to anyone in the Middle East (or in Latin America) to pretend that what America is going through now is comparable to what they've suffered under. And it demonstrates that classic American desire to make everything American-centric
Middle East correspondents @RichardJSpencer and @kshaheen have good threads on the "coup" question. I agree with them. It's insulting to say that this is a coup.
Today and in the weeks prior, US democracy faced one of its most serious tests in modern times. I'm not going to apologize for believing that our system is resilient. It is. Our institutions are flawed and sometimes hollow, but they prove themselves when they come under threat
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, we've been trying to do gallows humor here to lighten the mood. But the sense of dread is starting to really descend upon us (me personally but also at the election "party" I'm at). It's funny, but it's also really not funny
I'm thinking about my mom, and how she was volunteering all day at the PA office where they were preparing to process ballots. This is going to be hard for a lot of us. But my mom believed that democracy works, that it self-corrects. And now it's dawning on us that it might not
My mom loves this country so much, and it breaks my heart. And it's breaking my heart right now. It will probably come down to PA. And there's hope, of course. But the fact that it's even this close should tell us something
Something about the U.S. response to COVID has been bothering me, and it goes well beyond the president's own failures. In this new essay, I explore how anti-Trump narratives misled Americans about how exceptional we were—or weren't
Media outlets endlessly pushed an all-consuming narrative—that America's handling of COVID was uniquely bad and that Americans themselves were incapable of collective action. If only we could be more like Europe! These assertions are misleading, at best. They are also wrong.
Mainstream outlets weren't lying. They did excellent, mostly accurate reporting. But facts can be accurate while distorting our sense of what's real. One example is how infections and deaths were reported, without adjusting for population
NPR did a service by publishing the interview on 'In Defense of Looting.' I don't mean that in a snarky way. Bad ideas should get a platform, especially when they represent a significant segment of public or elite opinion
Of course, actual defenders of looting are a numerical fringe. But sympathy for looting and rioting is is more common among privileged elites. Mainstream journalists, including at places like @nytimes, have been coyly legitimizing certain kinds of violence as not actually violent
So let's not dance around these issues, considering how important they are. If you think widespread property damage and destruction of communities can be justified in the name of "justice," then come out with the full argument, and let's judge it on the merits
I thought I was crazy—or maybe my contrarianism had run amok—but after thinking about it more and furtive text messages from liberal friends, it seems that the worries about November are more prevalent than would have appeared from last night's snarky, dismissive coverage
Yes, I admit: I'm naturally suspicious when all the lefties, liberals, journalists on my feed are all making fun about how stupid and terrible the RNC speeches were. My instinct then is to assume that if enough "experts" think this, they must be at least partly wrong
While I was watching the RNC speeches and simultaneously reading the Twitter commentary, I kept on thinking to myself: are we watching the same convention?
Not historic. Not particularly important. And a reminder of why Israel, one of the region's few democracies, prefers that its Arab neighbors *not* be democratic
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't central. "Solving" it would be good, but it wouldn't address the region's fundamental problems. If Arab-Israeli peace happened, it would bring together Arab autocrats + Israel, none of whom want to see Arab citizens make their own decisions
Israel's anti-democratic foreign policy should be a major concern for U.S. policymakers because of its broader regional effects. If the U.S. ever got serious about supporting Arab democracy, Israel would see that as an existential threat—just as it did during the Arab Spring
Some additional thoughts based on some of the replies. First, democracy is good even if it leads to bad outcomes. We've become so used to seeing democracy & liberalism as intertwined that we've lost sight of why democracy, as a set of mechanisms and procedures, is so valuable 1/
Why is democracy good even when it doesn't bring about liberal outcomes? Democracy allows for peaceful transfer of power, particularly in ideologically polarized contexts. As a system of conflict regulation, it contributes to long-term, if not necessarily short-term, stability 2/