Yes, the Republican Party is radicalized and will stop at nothing to get power.

I am suggesting that this is not new, and that trying to
achieve a true liberal democracy is a constant battle.

The problem is one of expectations.

1/
People who have been following me for a while will find this threat repetitious, but I have new followers, so here goes.

One way to see the current Republican Party is that they want to return to the 1920s (or earlier!)

But let's take the 1920s.

2/
White men ruled all of our institutions: Universities, governor's mansions, both political parties, labor unions, Congress, the press, etc.

There were no laws against fixing prices, or manipulating markets, or insider trading.

3/
There were no laws against sexual harassment, and rape laws were designed to protect [White] men from false accusations. Women were expected to "guard the goods" and were blamed if they got into a situation in which they could be raped.

4/
White men could basically grab anything they wanted.

Many of the crimes those in Trump's circle are accused of were not against the law earlier in our history.

The reactionary view is that America was once pure and good and now has become corrupted and defiled.

5/
The progressive view of history goes like this:

We started out with some pretty good ideas, but a lot of people were left out.

Initially "we the people" meant White educated mostly land-owning men.

6/
The progressive view is that as we've included more people, the country has come close to its founding ideals.

For progressives, the graph looks like this:

Reactionaries see it pointing down.

7/
We didn't begin to have a true liberal democracy, by which I mean ⤵️until after 1954, the year the Supreme Court declared racial segregation illegal.

Since the 1950s and 1960s, we've been rapidly expanding who is included in "we the people."

The backlash has been fierce.

8/
In fact, the graph is not a smooth upward slope. It looks like this ⤵️

Progressives push forward, reactionaries push back.

For example, civil rights moved forward after the Civil War (in reconstruction) then was pushed back at the end of the 19th century.

9/
I said the problem is one of expectations.

People who came of age after the modern civil rights movement inherited (for the first time in our history) an expanding liberal democracy.

Sometimes people who inherit something think they are entitled to it.

10/
I think part of the problem is how the civil rights movement was taught in school. It was taught as if the battle was won.

Thurgood Marshall, MLK, Jr. Susan B. Anthony and lots of others did the work. Now the work is done.

We have a liberal democracy. It's ours.

11/
People thought the slope would continue moving upward.

They thought they were in a boat and they didn't have to paddle.

The current of what was right would continue upward.

Here's the problem . . .

12/
The forces that created the confederacy never went away. They were shamed and went underground. But they've been pushing back, harder and harder.

Here I talked about shock is "pre-helpless" ⤵️

Suddenly the arrow started moving backward.

13/
And people are shocked.

When the drafters of the Constitution set up our government, they never thought maintaining a representative government would be easy.

They knew tyrants would arise.

Every generation has to fight the same battle.

14/
The New Deal got us out of what @HC_Richardson calls our second oligarchy (robber barons). The Courts got us out of segregation.

If there's a pattern it's this: The reactionaries push us backward, but never all the way.

There's overall forward motion, but with backslides.

15/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield 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 @Teri_Kanefield

30 Nov
If people think that criminal prosecution will (1) cripple (or stop) the forces of right-wing extremism or (2) ensure a Democratic win in 2022, I can understand the panic and frustration.

See: (transcripts on my blog)
I think this belief underlies much of the frustration and panic which is causing people to blame Democrats for Republican lawbreaking on the grounds that Democrats are stubbornly refusing to do The Thing that will make the problem go away.
I repinned the "criminal consequences" video to my timeline. A transcript is here: terikanefield.com/criminal-punis…

I also address some of the Internet Memes about Merrick Garland.
Read 5 tweets
30 Nov
Ready for the answer? (This will help you prepare for the appellate procedure portion of the Twitter Bar Exam)

🔹Trump filed a lawsuit claiming that the docs housed at the National Archives should not go to Congress because he's asserting executive privilege.

1/
🔹By statute, the docs go to Congress unless Trump gets a court order.
🔹Deciding his lawsuit on the merits will take months, and by then it will be too late because the docs will be on their way (in tranches) to Congress

2/
🔹So Trump filed a motion asking for a preliminary injunction asking for the docs to be held until the court can decide the case on the merits.
🔹It's harder to get a preliminary injunction than it is to win on the merits because there are additional elements to meet.

3/
Read 5 tweets
30 Nov
Anyone listening?

They've been deep in the weeds of the statutory language, but now they're back arguing whether this is a clash between the branches.

It isn't. The legislative and executive branches are in agreement.

Trump (as former POTUS) is not a branch of government.
The conflict is between the former and current president, not between the branches.

Issue: So what is the role of the courts?

Can the court overrule the incumbent president on behalf of a former president?
Here we get these hypotheticals. What if four former presidents disagree with the incumbent president. (Implication: What if the current president is totally off his rocker?)

Answer: There is still no clash between the branches.
Read 15 tweets
30 Nov
Hi, @djrothkopf

I’ll answer your question here.

l'll begin by pointing out a few legal errors. You said this about the DOJ and the Carroll case⤵️

You referred to her case as a rape case. Actually, it was a defamation case.

1/

cc @Delavegalaw Image
This is an important distinction because the defamatory comment was made while Trump was president.

I wrote about Garland’s decision here: terikanefield.com/has-merrick-ga…

The controlling law is the Westfall Act.

2/

@djrothkopf
In a nutshell, the legal issue is governing whether the defamatory act was committed during the scope of Trump’s employment as president.

The legally correct answer (most likely and perhaos unfortunately) is yes.

Again, for more, see: terikanefield.com/has-merrick-ga…
@djrothkopf

3/
Read 9 tweets
29 Nov
If you read the article you see Schiff was talking specifically about the January 2 call in Georgia.

A grand jury has been convened and the Georga prosecutor said she's working on it.
See: nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/…

You all read past the headlines, right?
The first paragraph says Schiff is "concerned."
The last paragraph fact-checks Schiff.

Very large and influential accounts had meltdowns over the headline: See NOTHING is happening!!!!!

What am I going to do with all of you?

*I'm wagging my finger like a schoolmarm.* ImageImage
I am putting each one of you into the corner and taking away points for not reading past headlines.

Now you'll all have to earn extra credit to make up for it.

Read 4 tweets
29 Nov
What if instead of repeating: "there've been no consequences," everyone did:

"OMG, the Trump Org has been INDICTED for FRAUD!
And the GJ is still hearing evidence."

Repeat a million times. Let it sink into the public consciousness. ("Her emails")

Instead of minimizing it.
These things puff Trump up and help his Strongman image:

🔹There are never any consequences!
🔹He gets away with everything"
🔹Yeah, okay, but what about . . . ?

These guys ⤵️LOVE when you say that.

("no consequences" also isn't true)

2/
The right-wing understands how to do that. They take something that wasn't a crime ("her emails") and repeat it over and over. Mainstream media picks it up. Pretty soon even people who don't know better start thinking HRC was a crook.

What do Trump critics do?

3/
Read 8 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(