Republicans are not cowards, but true believers - and pretending otherwise “risks misleading the country about the true depths of GOP radicalization.”

@ThePlumLineGS is making a crucial point - and addresses a key question: What is animating the Republican assault on democracy?
As @ThePlumLineGS argues, the idea that Republicans are just scared of Trump is utterly unconvincing analytically, as it simply doesn’t explain their current actions - and, one might add, also ignores the longstanding anti-democratic impulses and tendencies on the Right.
The “cowardice” tale is useful, of course: It provides cover for Republicans (better a coward than a far-right extremist); and it allows the news media to cling to the conception of the GOP as a “normal” democratic party that is just dealing with an authoritarian insurrection.
If it’s not cowardice, then what? Are Republicans simply doing the corrupt bidding of their plutocratic masters? Or are they just interested in power for power’s sake, willing to do whatever it takes to rule, animated by a mixture of nihilism and cynicism?
Both elements certainly play a role. No one should doubt the massive influence of mega-rich donors or the impact of money and corruption in shaping the GOP’s plutocracy-friendly platform. And yes, some of these people certainly just want power and don’t care about much else.
But such interpretations have obvious blind spots and pitfalls. First of all, they can’t tell us what Republicans are telling themselves when they look in the mirror - an important question if we’re exploring motives.
It’s unlikely that anyone would get up in the morning and say “I’m just a power-hungry servant of plutocratic elites” - every villain being the hero in their own story and all that...
Secondly, these approaches can’t really tell us what’s animating the Republican base, nor do they explain what’s driving state and local officials across the country who are all in on the GOO’s anti-democratic radicalization.
The people in Arizona who are looking for traces of bamboo on Chinese fake ballots? We should imagine them as true believers.
We are dealing with true believers - that’s a point @joshtpm has repeatedly made, as have many others. And that’s a scary proposition: Much more convenient to pretend everyone loves democracy and some of us are just scared of the mean demagogue. But that’s not what’s happening.
The question really is: True believers in what? I think we need to start from the assumption that most Republicans are convinced they are waging a noble war against insidious forces that are threatening “real” (read: conservative white Christian patriarchal) America.
As most conservatives see it, the demographic, political, and cultural changes of previous decades are not simply “changing” the nation, but destroying it; multi-racial pluralism is not an ideal worth aspiring to, but a lethal threat to “real” Americanism.
What follows from this position is that the forces committed to multi-racial pluralism are “Un-American” - a threat to the nation or, more precisely perhaps, the real Volk and the “Will of the (conservative white Christian) People.”
That’s what @lionel_trolling captures precisely here: Democrats are seen not just as a political opponent, but as illegitimate actors pursuing an illegitimate political project. Democratic governance, therefore, is fundamentally illegitimate - it cannot, it must not be accepted.
In this view, the question really no longer is “Is there concrete evidence for voter fraud?” Illegitimate political forces who threaten the very nature of “real” America claim to have won the election - how could that result be anything but illegitimate and fraudulent?
“Evidence” be dammed - for conservative Republicans a “higher truth” is at stake: The rule of the legitimate volk and the future of “real” America.
This is what makes the situation so acutely dangerous: These people are 100 percent committed to preventing multi-racial pluralistic democracy from ever becoming a reality, and to installing authoritarian one-party minority rule to preserve conservative white Christian dominance.
They are not cowards, not merely corrupt (although some definitely are), not just nihilistic cynics (although Mitch McConnell undoubtedly is that too). They are believers - and we should believe them and act accordingly. The future of democracy depends on it.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Thomas Zimmer

Thomas Zimmer 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!

PDF

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 @tzimmer_history

10 May
Agreed. One dimension of this divide is that there is a type of self-proclaimed Very Serious Person - quite prevalent in all political camps - to whom warnings of authoritarianism smack of Trump-induced “alarmism,” of an unsophisticated fixation on Trump. The VSPs are wrong.
It’s true, of course, that a fixation on Trump can easily result in a misleading tale that portrays him as an aberration, separating him from longer-term trends and tendencies on the American Right.
Instead of dismissing Trump, however, the answer should be to focus on how dangerous those broader tendencies are, on how the same energies and anxieties that have animated the conservative movement for a long time fueled Trump’s rise.
Read 5 tweets
9 Apr
Great reflection on the debate over Trump as a “fascist” and, more generally, the uses and abuses of the #fascism concept in the current political discourse. I’d like to add a few thoughts and observations: 1/
In a vacuum, I think it’s fair to argue that the term “fascism” is sometimes used a little too indiscriminately, and that the indiscriminate use of the term can obscure more than it illuminates. 2/
There’s nothing unique about this tendency to overuse the term “fascism,” of course: The way the term “socialism” is used in the political debate, for instance, obviously bears little resemblance to what historians of the left would recognize. 3/
Read 24 tweets
25 Mar
From the perspective of a German who’s recently moved his family across the Atlantic, this is exactly what stands out about life in the United States, almost more than anything else.
I mean, I must have told my German mother at least twenty times how much we pay for childcare for our two boys - but every time we speak she asks again, because the number, while average for DC, is so beyond-the-pale crazy to German ears that it simply won’t register.
And healthcare... On New Year’s Eve 2019 our toddler fell, hurt his teeth, we had to go to the ER, in one of Germany’s best hospitals (University Hospital Freiburg), he was treated immediately - I received the bill four weeks later: 66 Euros. What would it have cost me over here?
Read 5 tweets
24 Mar
Think about how often gay marriage is described as a “polarizing” issue. Yes, the country was split in the middle on this question, about a decade ago; but this is not a story of #polarization - but one in which the majority of Americans is steadily coming around on major issues.
In many areas, the #polarization narrative obscures more than it illuminates. Take Americans’ changing views on LGBTQ rights, for example: Since the 1970s the percentage of people regarding homosexuality as an “acceptable lifestyle” has steadily increased.
The idea that gay Americans deserve civil rights protections at the work place reached near-consensus status long ago. So even in areas where substantive attitudes have shifted significantly, the public has not exactly been polarizing. #NotPolarization
Read 4 tweets
25 Nov 20
I reviewed @ezraklein‘s “Why We’re Polarized” for @hsozkult. A few thoughts, from a historical perspective, on an important book that still left me unconvinced that "polarization" is the right lens through which to analyze America’s recent past and present. 1/
Quick disclaimer: I’m not a political scientist and not necessarily interested in policy prescriptions. My perspective on “Why We’re Polarized” is that of a historian of 20th century U.S. politics who’s working on the history of the polarization idea/narrative. 2/
First of all, everyone should read "Why We’re Polarized." I learned an awful lot from this book, and the way @ezraklein summarizes and synthesizes the conflicts that shape U.S. politics and the forces that are shaping American society is truly impressive. 3/
Read 49 tweets
23 Nov 20
I was asked to provide a historical perspective on #Covid19 by @UniFreiburg's Studium generale and used the opportunity to reflect on what, if anything, we can learn from the global history of pandemics. Here’s a link to the recorded lecture (in German): videoportal.uni-freiburg.de/category/video…
Since the lecture is in German and basically the culmination of eight months of reflecting on, writing about, and debating #Covid19, I thought it might be useful to pull all my previous attempts at thinking about the pandemic historically together in one thread.
So here’s a thread of threads with links to lectures, articles, interviews, discussions. Please note: I put them in chronological order; my thinking about these issues has certainly evolved since the spring. #Covid19
Read 25 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!

:(