Nikki Haley made some statements last week that provide an interesting window into the conservative psyche and help explain why even the “moderates” united behind Trump. Some thoughts: 1/
https://twitter.com/maevereston/status/1408223773199945730
There’s obviously a lot of wannabe-tough nonsense in Nikki Haley’s statement. But it also expresses a feeling of being on the defensive, of being under siege, that is pervasive among conservatives – and has been for quite some time. 2/
https://twitter.com/maevereston/status/1408223773199945730
“The days of being nice should be over” – time to get dirty, to fight back by whatever means. That, to me, is the underlying principle, the anxiety and energy that animates much of what is happening on the American Right. 3/
The siege mentality is nothing new, of course, nor is the feeling of being victimized by a seemingly all-powerful opponent. As @LarryGlickman notes, this has been one of the core tenets of conservatism since Reconstruction and has always justified a no-holds-barred approach. 4/
https://twitter.com/larryglickman/status/1408222421388308488
The election of Barack Obama in 2008 escalated this siege mentality. To many conservatives, it came as a shock and personal offence: It seemed to represent the impending triumph of multiracial pluralism – and thus, in their view, the downfall of “real” America. 5/
So, why did conservatives – with relatively few exceptions – ultimately unite behind Trump as the chosen hero to fight back against these supposedly insidious forces? Especially when so many of them have always insisted that they abhor Trump and can’t stand him personally? 6/
Much of it, of course, can be explained by partisan political identity, and more specifically: negative partisanship. Under the existing conditions, anyone the Republican party nominates is practically guaranteed to get 40 to 45 per cent of the vote. 7/
But the concept of negative partisanship doesn’t quite capture the continued devotion to Trump - nor does it sufficiently explain his victory in the Republican primaries, or the fact that Republicans stood by him when they could have replaced him with Pence. 8/
There has to be, in the conservative mind, more of an affirmative case for Trump. There is an ideological level to this, of course: Trump personified white elite grievance – and the promise to make it the centerpiece of his agenda – more clearly than anyone else. 9/
He was also personally, as Ta-Nehisi Coates has famously put it, the most blatant repudiation imaginable of Obama – as a man, a politician, a president: reactionary backlash personified. 10/ theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
But to many conservatives, Trump was also – and this brings us back to Nikki Haley’s “The days of being nice should be over” – exactly the right man for the job because they saw him as a brawler, someone who would fight dirty and wouldn’t be burdened by norms and precedents. 11/
The clearest articulation of this idea can be found in the infamous “Flight 93 Election” essay that rightwing author Michael Anton published shortly before the 2016 election. 12/ 
“2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die.” That’s the first sentence in Anton’s essay – those, to him, were the stakes: If Hillary Clinton wins, America – “real” America – dies. 13/
Lots of talk about “conservative" values in this essay. But Anton isn’t exactly shy about spelling out the racist, white nationalist core of his preferred version of America – of what he considers “traditionally American”: 14/
“Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American...” 15/
So why unite behind Trump, even though he is “worse than imperfect,” as Anton puts it? Anton’s answer is not just that Hillary Clinton is worse – not just negative partisanship, if you will – but that Trump is the far superior option compared to all other Republicans. 16/
According to Anton, Trump alone would be willing to actually fight back against the “wholesale cultural and political change” – while all other Republicans “would have ensured more of the same.” 17/
In Anton’s words: “Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live.” 18/
Trump alone, in other words, could be counted on to “charge the cockpit” (because, again, in this view, Democrats are Un-American terrorists deliberately trying to kill “real America”…) 19/
Lest we forget: This has basically become the mainstream position among Republicans – that Democratic governance is fundamentally illegitimate because Democrats are not just a political opponent, but an “Un-American” force that must not be allowed to destroy the country. 20/
In this interpretation, Trump’s vulgarity, his crassness, the lack of decorum and decency – it’s exactly what qualifies him to fight a supposedly insidious opponent. Conservatives felt like they needed someone who would be willing to get his hands dirty – a brawler. 21/
As conservative Christian author Stephen Mansfield put it: “Why So Many Conservative Christians Wanted a ‘Pagan Brawler’ in the White House” 22/ christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/novemb…
During the Kavanaugh hearings in 2018, the idea that only Trump the brawler could be counted on to hold the line against the liberal onslaught was particularly prominent among conservatives. 23/
As rightwing columnist Michael Graham put it in the Boston Herald, “a rude, foul-mouthed fighter like Donald Trump” was all that stood between conservative America and liberal domination. 24/
Graham writes: “when you turn politics into the WWE,” (who did that? The Democrats! For being critical of a man who constantly lied and was credibly accused of sexual assault!) “can you be surprised when voters want the ‘Manhattan Mauler’ on their side?” 25/
It has become quite fashionable among conservative politicians and activists to present themselves as Trump-like “I’m ready to get dirty!” fighters – a bunch of self-styled brawlers in what they perceive / pretend to be a struggle of good vs. evil. 26/
Christopher Rufo, for instance, the rightwinger who helped set off the reactionary anti-CRT hysteria / crusade, describes himself as a “brawler” in this (all too generous) New Yorker profile. 27/ google.de/amp/s/www.newy…
Nikki Haley’s statement should be seen as a – pretty pathetic – attempt to present herself in this vein. That’s revealing in several ways. It’s in indication that this type of “brawler politics” has completely overtaken the Republican Party – it’s not a fringe phenomenon. 28/
https://twitter.com/maevereston/status/1408223773199945730
It’s also instructive as a window into the conservative mindset – into a general feeling amongst conservatives of having their backs against the wall, of fighting from a position of weakness, against a dangerous enemy, in a struggle in which the old rules don’t apply anymore. 29/
And it is indicative of the dangerous permission structure that conservatives have given themselves, of how they rationalize their actions: Democrats don’t deserve respect – in a fight of good vs. evil, norms and forbearance don’t count. Only victory, by whatever means. 30/
Again, all of it has been among the core tenets of movements conservatism for a long time. But it used to be counteracted to some degree by a politics of respectability or, more precisely: plausible deniability and subtext. No more. It’s pure brawler politics now. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
