Thread by @SethCotlar

It’s important to remember the massive propaganda campaign that led up to January 6. First they were willing to say, then they were willing to do, just about anything to illegally retain power. No reason to expect different in the future, given the lack of contrition.

All political actors strive to maximize their power. And also they, at certain points, decide where the lines are that they can’t or voluntarily won’t cross. A political party that respects no legal or ethical lines that might limit their actions is a very dangerous one.

Rush Limbaugh and then Fox were "proof of concept" for the idea that a conservative media outlet could be as bitterly angry, conspiratorial, and empirically-challenged as they wanted so long as they ginned up votes for Republicans. Trump just took it to the next level.

As for the legal lines, the conservative movement has spawned numerous, technically credentialed people like John Eastman or Lin Wood who are willing to argue anything that can put a legal-esque fig leaf over clearly illegal power grabs. slate.com/news-and-polit…

All of this line crossing, of course, is understood as purely defensive. It rests upon the idea that "we," the party of imaginary immigrant caravans, imaginary bamboo ballots, and very real insurrections, have been "too nice" while "they" are amoral monsters who will do anything.

It's become cliche to say GOP messaging is 100% projection. That's mostly true, but it might be more accurate to call it "accusation in a mirror"--accusing your opponents of wanting to do terrible things that they, in fact, do not want to do, but which you yourself intend to do.

Here's an essay on that concept. It was developed in the context of the Rwandan genocide. Just about every genocidal movement has carried out the sort of atrocities that they, previously, had falsely claimed their targets were planning. lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol43/is…

Here's a more modest example of this "accusation in a mirror" dynamic. The idea that the people who voted for Joe Biden, a devout Catholic, would "cancel Christianity" is obviously ludicrous. Cancelling an entire religion in America? Who would ever consider doing that?

Maybe the majority of Republican voters? The same people who were untroubled by the idea of "a Muslim ban?" theguardian.com/world/2018/nov…

Jenna Ellis, BTW, has no problem with the idea of cancelling the civil rights of LGBTQ folks...while being deeply concerned that "they" want to cancel her rights to worship freely as a Christian.

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1213927839403130880?s=20

Thanks to @misguidedsoul7 for pointing me to this peak example of right wing “accusation in a mirror.” Published September 11, 2020. thefederalist.com/2020/09/11/the…