“What the hell happened to her?” suggests that Haley and, by extension, Republicans in general have recently lost their way. Better to acknowledge that everything we’re seeing is well in line with longstanding anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies on the American Right.
That doesn’t mean that Republicans haven’t changed the way they talk, the way they present themselves. Many have. And these shifts on the level of rhetoric and style were, to some extent, inspired by Trump.
I reflected on Haley’s embrace of “brawler politics,” specifically, here:
But on an ideological level, in terms of the political project that Republicans are pursuing, none of this is new, all of it is well in line with longstanding impulses on the Right, and animated by the same anxieties that have shaped and fueled conservatism for many decades.
“What the hell happened to her?” is a good question only if it is intended to mean: What happened that made her embrace authoritarianism so brazenly and blatantly instead of sticking with a more traditional approach of subtext and dog whistles?
I’d also suggest we refrain from using pathologizing language to describe what these Republicans are doing. I understand the impulse to call them all nuts, crazy, insane. This, however, tends to obscure rather than illuminate what is happening.
Nikki Haley has not all of a sudden lost her mind, Republicans are not simply “obsessed,” not led astray by hurt feelings or temporary delusions - the current radicalization builds on longstanding anti-democratic convictions and impulses among conservatives.
Here's a (much) longer version of that argument, with plenty of receipts:
It’s not just a phase, or a mood; they’re not just acting on a whim. Republicans everywhere, on all levels, are deliberately and systematically pursuing their goal of installing one-party minority rule. They’re not crazy, they are determined. That’s what should worry us.

• • •

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

8 Jul
In this important column, @ezraklein emphasizes the need to question certain pervasive myths about American democracy. I would like to add some thoughts from a historical perspective – on a democracy that never has been yet: 1/
Even after four years of Trump, even after the insurrection of January 6, the animating principle for too many Democratic officials and liberals more broadly seems to be that “It cannot happen here.” 2/
American democracy can no longer afford this mix of willful ignorance and naive exceptionalism. It absolutely can happen here – and in many ways, an authoritarian victory would constitute a return to the historical norm. 3/
Read 53 tweets
1 Jul
Appreciate the sentiment - but I’m really hoping that a) we’re not seriously still debating *if* #SCOTUS is an impediment to progress, and that b) we can all acknowledge that impeding progress towards multiracial democracy has been the historical norm for the Supreme Court.
Seriously, the widespread view among Liberals of #SCOTUS as an ally in the fight for a more democratic, fairer society stems entirely from a romanticized understanding of the Court’s history, misconstruing the Warren Court as the norm, when really that era was a massive outlier.
Whenever you bring up the fact that SCOTUS has, as a historical norm, been allied far more often with an anti-democratic, reactionary political project, someone will inevitably yell “But what about this decision? Or that decision?!”
Read 12 tweets
30 Jun
As far as I can tell, Hanania is widely regarded and presented by people on the center-right as a serious conservative intellectual. This, however, is not something a serious intellectual would write.
One has to be either remarkably uninformed or astonishingly disingenuous to equate the serious theoretical work and empirical analyses by leading legal scholars with the “modern representatives” of fascism and white nationalism.
If you think of Crenshaw / Bell and Stormfront / Bannon as equivalents, that really says a lot about you.
Read 4 tweets
29 Jun
This is a crucial piece by @ThePlumLineGS, outlining why the Select Committee should explore the “white rage” behind the January 6 insurrection.

I’d like to add: The white nationalist threat doesn’t emanate from the fringes of society – but from the Republican Party itself. 1/
We must not miss the forest for the trees: “White rage” is not just a fringe phenomenon in American politics, and the people who stormed the Capitol were not just a bunch of frustrated individuals from the fringes of society. 2/
They also weren’t simply seduced and overwhelmed by Trump’s #BigLie – I reflected on why it would be dangerously misleading to imagine the insurrectionists as victims of brilliant propaganda here: 3/
Read 40 tweets
28 Jun
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/
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/
“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/
Read 32 tweets
23 Jun
Was this statement opposing federal initiatives to guarantee the right to vote made in:

A: 1869 (reaction to the 15th Amendment)
B: 1890 (justification for Jim Crow laws)
C: 1965 (reaction to the Voting Rights Act)
D: 2021 (justification for blocking the For the People Act)
The answer is D, but the only clue is the mention of S1 - because other than that it’s exactly how white supremacists have always justified their highly discriminatory election laws that were specifically designed to disenfranchise Blacks and anyone threatening their rule.
Seriously, if you know anything about the history of racism and white supremacy in this country, about how it took the federal government overriding “states’ rights” and forcing the states to respect Black people’s right to vote, you know how outrageous a statement this is.
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!

:(