First, the people who really like Trump in 2018 are the same ones who really disliked Blacks, Muslims, LGBT+, and Hispanics in 2011. It's NOT THE SAME for the GOP in general, or even for Ryan or McConnell. Trump is drawing on this particular group of people to a unique degree.
He is also doing this ACROSS PARTIES.
The new MAGA/anti-MAGA conflict is not an entirely partisan one. It's about white Christian supremacy versus a fully multi-racial democracy. The Trump effect occurs most powerfully at the most hateful end of the spectrum (above 0.5 on the animus scale).
And it's not happening for anyone on the Democratic side. Hating Christians and White people doesn't predict favorability toward any Democratic figures or the Democratic Party. So it isn't "anti-White racism" (whatever that means) motivating the left. It's not "both sides."
This means that there is a faction in American politics that has moved from party to party, can be recruited from either party, and responds especially well to hatred of marginalized groups. They're not just Republicans or Democrats, they're a third faction that targets parties.
THIS is the faction we, as Americans, should be worried about. "Bipartisanship" is not the answer to the problem. We need to confront this particular faction of Americans who have been uniquely visible and anti-democratic since before the Civil War (when they were Democrats).
We haven't really talked about them - except in extreme and isolated ways like talking about the KKK. But Trump served as a lightning rod for lots of regular people who hold white Christian supremacist beliefs. We neglect to name and identify them at the peril of democracy.
Their current control over the GOP makes it seem like a partisan issue. But this faction has been around longer than our current partisan divide. And calling it partisan is a misdirection (even if it is facially true).
It draws our attention away from the faction and forces us to "both-sides" democracy v. anti-democracy. These two sides are not equivalent. As academics and journalists, who are pressured into non-partisanship, it makes it difficult to speak honestly about the threat.
But this current research locates the faction in 2011, and observes them moving toward Trump himself by 2018, from across the political spectrum. Trump solidified the faction's control over the GOP, but they are not loyal to a party - they are loyal to white Christian domination.
This is the true but uncomfortable conversation we need to start having. It may seem "uncivil" or rude. It may break the norms of objective reporting and research. But these rules and norms have always protected this faction.
More than "polarization," we need to worry about the very real threat posed by an anti-democratic group that has always existed in the electorate, and has taken control of parties to cover for their explicitly anti-democratic aims. When we do point at them, they are indignant.
As long as they can hide behind party labels they are protected by "bipartisanship" and the both-sides implications of "polarization" research. It's time to bring this faction out of the protection of party labels and the veil of political civility, and into the discussion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Personal story: When I was 37 wks pregnant with my 2nd kid I got an eye infection that I was told normally makes people incapacitated with pain. I handled it - the dr was astonished. Most men come to him screaming. In labor a few weeks later, I begged my husband to kill me.
With my first kid’s delivery I almost died. I spent 5 hours in transition (moms know what this means). Both of these were very much wanted pregnancies/babies. They were both terrifying and torturous experiences.
If someone had forced me to endure either of these experiences I would have considered it to be brutal torture. If someone were to force either of my daughters to do it today I would swear revenge.
One really important thing that’s revealed by this piece is the extent to which Carlson takes advantage of us/them language and identity-based threats. These are the most powerful tools for generating strong identities.
In all of the research on tribalism/identity, scholars tend to focus on how vulnerable we are as individuals to identity-based thinking. We don’t talk so much about the implications of that fact for our leaders.
Found these baby animals in a nest under the grill. Dog was trying to eat them. What are they?
They’re about 2 inches long.
Update: they’re bunnies! And bunny moms come back at night so these littles should be ok. We put a fence around the grill so the dog won’t get any more of them.
Academic thread: Please read @NathanKalmoe's thoughts below on our recent academic debate. As he says, we address a lot of the issues from the article in our book, which doesn't come out until May. I'd like to add a few thoughts on the ethics of all this:
We did send a free copy of our book proofs to the authors of the PNAS article so that they could better understand our arguments before this article was published. Our competing (and complementary!) arguments from the book are not acknowledged in the article.
The vagaries of the academic publishing schedule mean that it is faster to publish a PNAS article attacking a project than it is to publish that project itself. That leaves us trying to defend something that most people can't read yet. Not even the reviewers of the article.
I spoke with @colvinj for this article and I can't overstate how dangerous it is for public officials to condone violence - even "symbolically." Norms (like anti-violence) are enforced through social sanction. When nobody sanctions violent messaging, the norms are weakened. 1/
Winks and nods are exactly how Trump encouraged the insurrection on Jan. 6. If they aren't widely denounced, it doesn't take very many people to cause serious chaos. Once violence occurs, it can spark an uptick in approval of violence, which can lead to a vicious cycle. 2/
In our forthcoming book, @NathanKalmoe and I find that support for violence increases in the wake of violent events. AND that anti-violent messaging can reduce approval of violence. 3/ press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book…
It took me a while to get to this, but I just wanted to point out that @NathanKalmoe and I don't really disagree with most of this article in our forthcoming book. The problem is that it takes a long time to write and publish a book! But here are some previews:
First, the point about disengaged respondents is I think the most important point made by @seanjwestwood et al. It is a very legitimate concern and obviously has real effects on average levels of support for violence. That is something that we should keep in mind going forward.
However, the 44% finding was a serious aberration and we attempted to add a caveat to that article casting doubt upon that number. What we have seen since 2017 are numbers much closer to 10-15% supporting violence "today" and 15-20% if they lose the next election.