I think this is basically right. At the very least, we need to acknowledge that historically, “lowering the temperature” has almost always meant putting the breaks on - or even reversing - social and racial progress in an attempt to appease reactionary demands and sensibilities.
https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1445432165185974273
In that way, “lowering the temperature” has almost always come at the expense of traditionally marginalized groups and their demands for equality and respect.
Conversely, times of accelerated racial and social progress - or, more precisely: phases that were widely perceived as such by the white majority - have always been characterized by heightened political conflict and “polarization.”
https://twitter.com/tzimmer_history/status/1392923214859354120
In many ways, “polarization” is the price U.S. society has had to pay for real progress towards multiracial, pluralistic democracy – there is absolutely no need for polarization-induced nostalgia.
This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not worth looking for policies that could “soften” the resistance to racial and social progress – as long as that doesn’t morph into the all-too-familiar “backlash politics,” preemptively privileging those very same reactionary sensibilities.
Beware of the logic of defeatist appeasement and pre-emptive abandonment of progress in the name of “unity” or to prevent “backlash.” The conflict at the heart of American politics – multiracial, pluralistic democracy Yes or No? – is real, and it can’t be evaded or postponed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
