Another massive advantage the Right has, in addition to the one @drvolts emphasizes, is the fact that it’s a much more homogeneous coalition, almost all white and conservative, easier to unify behind a single project of preserving “real” (read: White Christian-dominated) America.
By contrast, if what we mean by “the Left” here is roughly the Democratic coalition, then that’s a much more diverse beast - ideologically, racially / ethnically, in terms of cultural sensibilities. Much harder to get everyone on the same page on anything, harder to mobilize.
Crucially, the Right also has cultivated an image of “the Left” as this radically Un-American threat for decades, can built on decades of demonization of “the Left” as a fundamentally illegitimate force that is out to destroy “real” America. No equivalent to that among Democrats.
So, yes, this specific anti-“CRT” moral panic is conjured out of thin air - as Christopher Rufo, the guy who is chiefly responsible for conjuring it, has been proudly telling us himself! But it builds on a long list of rightwing crusades that came before it, going back decades.
Whatever the moral panic du jour - “pc”? Cancel culture? Wokeness? - and whatever the latest “The Libs are using public education to brainwash our kids!” crusade: The specifics matter less than what the Right accepts as the Higher Truth - “They” want yo destroy “real” America.
Once that rubric is established - and it has been established for decades! - it gets a lot easier to rile up your side by plugging something in that you know will resonate with your relatively homogenous base’s ideological commitments and cultural sensibilities.
This is indeed exactly what they are referring to: A bunch of unsubstantiated claims, all driven by ideologically motivated fear of what *might* be, with zero evidence presented and absolutely no interest in the empirical reality of what actually *is* happening in the classroom.
History teachers at all levels: “This is absolutely not what is going on inside the classroom.”
David Brooks: “But I heard from people [Republican operatives and conservative activists] that they *sense* it *might be* and I’m totally sticking with that!”
Just bizarre.
It’s the same pattern over and over again. And not once will the “moderates” propagating these false stories as evidence of leftwing “illiberalism” conclude that they might want to be more cautious the next time they encounter some dubious cancel culture anecdote. Not once.
I’m being aggressively reminded that “The two parties are not the same and voting for one or the other produces meaningfully different results” is an objectionable statement for many who consider themselves to be on the Left, and I struggle to express how depressing I find that.
And this at a moment in which the survival of American democracy - severely flawed as it is, but at least somewhat closer to becoming a multiracial, pluralistic democracy than at any other point in U.S. history - depends on the center-Left and the Left uniting against the Right.
Been thinking a lot about the near-vanishing of democracy in interwar Europe. A key factor almost everywhere was that, while conservatives made common cause with the Far-Right, the Center-Left and the Left did not stand together to push back against the authoritarian onslaught.
Ah yes, the wise man looks at the two major parties - the one that wants to get rid of democracy to entrench the rule of wealthy white men and the one in which most people want to bring America closer to a social democratic ideal - and yells: “Don’t you see?! They’re the same!”
If you believe in the principles of equality and fairness, and believe that democracy is the political form best suited to realizing those principles and to recognizing the dignity of every human being, then you must see the fundamental difference between the two major parties.
If you’re still holding on to the “The two parties are the same!” shtick in 2021, you’re either incapable of producing a serious political analysis or you are not serious in your professed political principles and perhaps care about something other than democracy and equality.
Disheartening for the White House to propagate this willful category error. Unless the administration accepts and treats democracy as an overarching concern that transcends and permeates all levels and areas of the polity, it will be hard to defeat the authoritarian onslaught.
Conservatives certainly don’t treat democracy as just one issue amongst many: They have made the quest to prevent multiracial, pluralistic democracy their overriding concern. They understand that the struggle over democracy determines the course of the nation.
“We can’t let democracy interfere with white Christian dominance” is what’s animated religious conservatives. “We can’t let democracy interfere with the market (and thus the rule of wealthy white men)” is what libertarians / neoliberals have argued.
This week, @MaxBoot came out as a single-issue voter – his issue being the fate of democracy. That’s an important statement, because the key question in America today is whether or not enough people are as committed to preserving democracy as Republicans are to abolishing it. 1/
I think the position @MaxBoot lays out is the one that all small-d democrats should adopt – because we need to acknowledge that most people on the Right already are single-issue voters, their issue being the fate of “real” (read: white Christian patriarchal) America. 2/
Focusing on the fate of democracy above all else is, analytically, the right response to the authoritarian threat precisely because democracy is, of course, not really a “single issue,” but an overarching concern that transcends and permeates nearly all areas of public policy. 3/
“History will not be kind…” - “History will judge…” - “History will…” Stop.
What “history” will have to say about today’s Republican Party depends to a large degree on what happens here, now. “History” is not coming to the rescue of American democracy. That’s up to us.
I know why people keep saying this: “History will be our judge.” As a rhetorical device, it lends more weight to the message. And I understand the longing for some form of higher justice and the hope that “history” might be able to deliver it.
But that’s not how it works. What we refer to as “history” is a never-ending struggle, an always-raging debate on the past, informed, shaped, and fueled by ever-changing sensibilities and conflicts in the present.