Tucker Carlson is actually a late-comer to the American right's love affair with Viktor Orban. A thread (1/n):
As I reported in @newrepublic@typeinvestigate in 2019, Orban hired a Republican strategize to plot his return to power--and his later consolidation of power--in 2010. (2/n)
At the time, supporting Orban was considered a fringe position in the DC foreign policy establishment, and even in the Republican party. Dana Rohrabacher was the standard-bearer of this position. (4/n)
But thanks to the work of DC strategists and lobbyists--and the growing affection for Orban's "illiberal democracy" within the right *and* the religious right (more on that later in the thread), embracing Orban was increasingly becoming the mainstream position in GOP. (5/n)
Meanwhile, as I reported in @VICE@typeinvestigate in 2019, the religious right was also developing an admiration for Orban and other European autocrats. (7/n)
On the surface, it looked simply like shared ideology against LGBTQ and reproductive rights, broadly disparaged as "gender ideology." And yes, this shared oppo is anti-democratic, as in opposed to democratic values like equal rights. But... 8/n)
It was more than that. They actually also admired Orban's very successful efforts to dismantle democratic institutions--which helps us understand why they support same in U.S. (9/n)
Is it terrifying that Carlson is embracing Orban as TV spectacle? Absolutely. But to understand the effect this is going to have on his audience, it's also important to understand the groundwork has been laid for quite some time--making it ever more terrifying. (11/11-fin)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is not true. She filed the lawsuit before she made any wedding websites.
She was not taken to court. She filed the lawsuit to get exempted from complying with a non discrimination law. But the religious right loves to have the image of the Christian proprietor being hauled into court for her beliefs. But it’s simply not true.
ADF knows this — they represent her — but they retweeted Graham anyway.
To wit: the opening anecdote suggests that her church or her kids' Christian school might lose their tax exempt status because of their stance opposing marriage equality. 2/x
First, this has not happened once in the 7 yrs since Obergefell.
Second, despite all the fear sowed by the right that this would be like Bob Jones, recall that even though SCOTUS ruled in the govt's favor, the IRS abandoned enforcing that policy, and... 3/x
I just read the piece. I have some thoughts, which I will collect.
So. I know Rob, and he has been a source on a few stories I’ve written.
I understand how shocking this particular story — along with a couple of others recently, in which he describes his efforts to shape how SCOTUS justices thought about and wrote decisions. 1/x
Plus the efforts to connect SCOTUS justices with his stealth missionaries who would help shape their views. 2/x
I just read the New York Times piece raising doubts about gender-affirming care (although the article doesn't call it that). This graf shows just how unaware the writers and editors are of the political/religious movement behind the effort to deny trans people their rights:
I've been covering the religious right assault on trans rights for years. It's driven not by science or medicine, but by political activists who sought to sow a panic about trans people, a tactic that gained steam after SCOTUS ruled for marriage equality in 2015.
I read NYT story this morning and tried (unsuccessfully) to dissect the sourcing. This is illuminating (and infuriating that NYT elides or obscures this)
@emptywheel It's not ok to obscure the identity or interests of your sources to such a degree that readers have no idea that someone with multiple conflicts and motivation is main or only source for your story that is basically non-news but shapes the narrative