I question the framing and significant omissions in this profile of Kristi Noem, which doesn't even mention the misleading, deceitful story she told about the "death tax" that led to her rise to national prominence./1
Her story about how the estate tax adversely affected her family did not add up, although she and others continue to refer to it as justification for eliminating it./2
Here's a portion of 2019 article by Noem in which she refers to to the impact of the "death tax" on her family./3
Early on the piece highlights (twice) her "defiance of coronavirus restrictions," using an active, heroic word. Only in paragraph 21 does it mention "the high per capita death toll" in SC. It doesn't mention the state's response was the 3rd worst. /4
Martin also writes in the lede paragraph that Noem is "fusing Trumpism with a down-home conservatism spin." After reading the article, I honestly have no idea what this means. It suggests there is something original about her politics, but I couldn't identify it./5
Martin later calls her a "Trump-of-the-prairie provocateur" and twice mentions that she "triggers" the left and the media and that she generated applause at CPAC by dissing Fauci. Is that what he means by "down-home conservative spin"? /6
I realize that 24/7 culture wars has become the M.O. for the GOP, but this article barely mentions any policies that she favors or has implemented--her partial veto of the trans bill and her allowing fireworks at Mt. Rushmore are all that I could find./7
"In addition to her ubiquity on Fox News...she has taken to Twitter with gusto. And not just to troll rappers," Martin writes, in a typical paragraph.
Wait, is this an example of "down-home conservatism" or "Trump-of-the-Prairie" provocation? /8

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Lawrence Glickman

Lawrence Glickman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LarryGlickman

29 Apr
In my book, I argued that though the language of free enterprise "hung in a state of suspended animation," it became increasingly effective as the New Deal order weakened. Scott's speech suggests that this language may finally be past its sell-by date./1
As I wrote, the free enterprise text remained remarkably stable from the 1930s onward, but the context did not. Whereas such language, though not new, seemed bold and exciting in the Age of Reagan, it seems stale and ineffectual in the current political moment./2
Free enterprise conservatism won out for a time by claiming the mantle of "common sense." Scott invoked common sense (twice) in his rebuttal, but what he offered was a litany free enterprise cliches: "big government waste," "job-killing tax hikes," "Washington schemes." /3
Read 5 tweets
19 Apr
Running for Governor of CA as a Republican in 1966, as Lisa McGirr shows in SUBURBAN WARRIORS, Ronald Reagan supported the right "to discriminate against Negroes," "refused to repudiate the John Birch Society," used "coded language" and "profited by playing to white racism." Image
Even before that, in 1963, Joe Alsop wrote that “a Goldwater candidacy will automatically make the Republican Party into the ‘white man’s party.”/2 Image
In his book, The AGONY OF THE GOP, 1964, Robert Novak used the same words as Alsop in describing the dangerous direction of the Republican Party: White Man’s Party.”/3 Image
Read 6 tweets
14 Apr
One dynamic very easy to foresee is that the GOP Caucus will unanimously (or nearly) oppose every significant Biden legislative initiative, as they did under Obama, no matter its merits. Negotiations are important but the GOP endgame is clear. /1 washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021…
I’m skeptical that the reason why Republicans won’t go along is explainable along these lines. Under Trump, they supported expanding the power of the federal government in many instances, increased the size of the debt, and passed a tax cut that did not help the “U.S economy.”/2
It strikes me that total opposition to Democratic legislative proposals has become a far more deep-rooted principle for the GOP than, say, “traditional Republican concerns about the debt and deficit,” or “worries about the side of the federal government.” /3
Read 5 tweets
2 Apr
This excellent column by @paulkrugman evokes the "Committee on Research in Economic History" founded in 1940 and tasked with showing that New Deal era government-economic development projects were deeply in the American grain, not a dangerous departure./1
As I discuss in FREE ENTERPRISE:AN AMERICAN HISTORY, this group sought to promote scholarship that exposed the myth of laissez faire and showed “public spending to be a long-standing political tradition.” /2
In a special 1943 issue of the JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY called "The Tasks of Economic History," and in a number of influential monographs, leading scholars--including Louis Hartz and Oscar Handlin--published state-focused studies that offered evidence for these claims./3
Read 17 tweets
28 Mar
I've already done a thread critiquing Balz's framing of the GOP's "traditional resistance" to deficits and I wanted to note a separate point about how he frames backlashes in this piece./1
His claim is that the Great Society “triggered a backlash against bigger government, which gave rise to the conservative movement.” This framing is very common but I feel that it underplays the agency of those who actually participated in the backlash. /2 Image
Very often we see similar framing about the Civil Rights movement, with the claim that it “sparked” a backlash. /3
Read 5 tweets
28 Mar
Although the GOP once supported "free soil," we no longer refer to it as a "traditional Republican" belief. Yet journalists, against all evidence, persist in referring to the GOP's "traditional resistance to bigger deficits and more debt."/1
Remember way back in 2017 when the Senate GOP unanimously passed the Trump tax cut, most of whose benefits went to the wealthy and corporations, and which has substantially added to the deficit?/2
Remember back in 2002 when Vice President Dick Cheney told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil that "deficits don't matter." /3
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!