- Angela Merkel’s legacy – and how worried should we be about the future of German democracy?
- Has the pandemic taught us anything about the ability of democracies to handle collective action crises?
- ...
Also:
- The dangers of the “politics of anticipated backlash”
- Why we should be more skeptical of established narratives of democracy’s supposed triumph after the end of the Cold War, the rise of “populism,” or the “crisis” of liberal democracy in the 21st century
- ...
There’s more:
- When the comparison between Europe and the U.S. is instructive – and when we need to be careful not to obscure longstanding American traditions and continuities of racism and white nationalism (we even touch on the “fascism” question!)
- ...
And finally:
- Why America has become a test case of world-historic significance for whether or not a stable multi-racial, pluralistic democracy can be achieved.
Grateful to @WillHitchUVA and @sivavaid for the invitation and for being such wonderful hosts, and to @robertoarmengol for putting it all together. An absolute pleasure to work with the @DinDpodcast crew.
I think @ThePlumLineGS has this exactly right: The protection of voting rights is a partisan issue – because democracy itself has become a partisan issue.
It’s the fundamental reality of American politics, and it’s worth putting in historical perspective. A few thoughts:
It’s crucial to understand what “democracy” meant in the U.S. before the civil rights legislation of the 1960s: A system that was fairly democratic if you happened to be a white Christian man – and something entirely different if you were not.
Until the 1960s, there was a pretty stable, bipartisan elite consensus that democracy should not interfere with the established power structure, and so the system was deliberately set up in a way that left white Christian male dominance largely untouched.
What I find so persuasive is the combination of a complete lack of nuance, the absence of any informed assessment of the risks and pitfalls of the “No more masks” policy, and the abundance of self-righteousness.
For real though, here are just a few issues you might have expected the founder of Persuasion to address if he wanted to make a serious effort to, you know, *persuade* people:
The fact that fully vaccinated people have a very low chance of getting sick, but it’s not zero, and more importantly, there’s a chance they might still spread the virus. Which is why many in the medical community are critical of the new guidelines and will continue to wear masks
This is such an important observation - and it points to a failure among some who categorically reject the idea of fascism in the present-day U.S. to adapt their analysis to the specific conditions of 21st century America.
There are many strands of the debate over whether or not what we’re seeing on the Trumpist / Far Right can adequately be described as “fascism.” Many of the prevailing arguments are based on a comparison to fascism’s rise in the European interwar period.
One prominent argument holds that fascism can only arise in response to the threat of a Far Left takeover that ultimately compels the Center-Right to make common cause with the fascists. This is indeed what enabled Mussolini and Hitler to take power.
Thread: On polarization, “consensus,” and multiracial democracy in American history.
I’m writing a book about the idea of “polarization” and how it has shaped recent American history. @JakeMGrumbach is making a crucial point here, and I’d like to add a few thoughts: 1/
First of all, @JakeMGrumbach is right: Political “consensus” was usually based on a bipartisan agreement to leave the discriminatory social order intact and deny marginalized groups equal representation and civil rights. A white male elite consensus was the historical norm. 2/
The frequently invoked “consensus” of the post-World War II era, for instance, was depending on both parties agreeing that white patriarchal rule would remain largely untouched. “Civility” was the modus operandi between elites who adhered to that order. 3/
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.
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.