As January 6 comes to an end, I am filled with a sense of admiration and gratitude for the many academic observers of American history, politics, society, and culture who have put themselves out there, offered their perspective, and for whom this week must have been stressful.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to pretend we have the hardest or most important jobs in the world; we don’t. But please, if you’ll indulge me: I’ve only done a few media appearances and interviews this week, a fraction of what many others are doing - and I’m pretty exhausted.
For the vast majority of academic observers, all these public efforts and appearances - while certainly welcome as opportunities to present our work - come on top of the core responsibilities and duties. There’s a syllabus to design, a book to write, a paper to grade…
I’m assuming we all appreciate the opportunity to present our work, even relish the public attention. But even beyond the time and effort this all takes, there are significant downsides. If you speak out publicly in defense of democracy, the rightwing online mob will target you.
I’ve gotten more of that this week than ever before - the anniversary of January 6 has the self-proclaimed “patriots” and defenders of “real America” on high alert. And what I’ve gotten is negligible compared to what those who are not shielded by being a white man have to endure.
That’s why I can totally understand when people decide to stop. There are many legitimate reasons not to engage in the conflict anymore - @Patrick_Wyman outlines a few of them here, for instance, and I share many of his frustrations, I feel his exhaustion.
But I do want to disagree with this: Yes, there is self-promotion, there is smugness, and I’m very much including myself here. But there are also many serious and sincere efforts to offer whatever we can, to perhaps nudge the discourse in a better direction ever so slightly.
And even though I am highly skeptical myself of the myth that the political conflict is going to be decided - or even significantly influenced - by “better ideas” and arguments, I can’t let go of the idea that it is possible to make an impact.
I’m simply basing that on the fact that I, myself, have benefited tremendously from the public-facing work of historians, political scientist, sociologists, and many others - have learned so very much from following them right here, on Twitter, or listening to them on podcasts…
I do have to believe - I want to believe - that this type of work can have some impact beyond the confines of the academic community. And that’s why I am grateful to anyone who is willing to put themselves out there, and to handle the nonsense and abuse that comes with it.
And so, to anyone who talks to the media, goes on podcasts or radio shows, writes guest columns, shares their thoughts on Twitter: I have learned a lot from you, and I know I will keep learning, and for that I am grateful. (And I’m glad not every week is like January 6 week)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What is the meaning of #January6th – what is its place in American history?
As of right now, this is an entirely open question. The answer will depend on what happens next. This captures the current moment precisely: American democracy at a crossroads. A reflection: 1/
We now have a fairly clear picture of the attack of January 6 and the events leading up to it. We know that it was not a “spontaneous” protest, but a deliberate assault on democracy, organized and led by far-right militants and white nationalist groups. 2/ nyti.ms/3AfdRZB
The assault on the Capitol must be seen in the context of a larger attempt to disrupt the transfer of power and nullify the result of a democratic election – an attempted (self-)coup, deliberately planned and strategized by Donald Trump and people in his orbit. 3/
Went on the @KreuzundFlagge podcast for a conversation about the past and present of U.S. democracy and what is animating the anti-democratic radicalization of the American Right.
I am more pessimistic now than I was a year ago - and unfortunately, @ardenthistorian agrees…
This is part 1 of a 2-part conversation. Here is an incomplete list of the topics we discussed - and I’ll include a few links to previous reflections on the state of American politics to provide some more evidence and receipts (in English):
Why Donald Trump is the favorite to be the next Republican presidential candidate, as the GOP and the American Right in general are basically unified behind him and, more importantly, his political project…
I’m grateful to the @nytimes editorial board for publishing this. After all, the key question in America today is whether or not enough people in positions of influence and power are as committed to preserving democracy as Republicans are to abolishing it.
However, it should also be noted that the NYT - just like other mainstream media outlets - is often complicit in obscuring the anti-democratic radicalization of the Republican Party and the acute threat to American democracy emanating from the Right:
By dissolving everything into a tale of “partisanship” and “polarization” that always implicates #BothSides, thus upholding a “neutrality” dogma that provides cover for extremism and leads to severe distortions…
Don’t frame this as “oh, the pandemic is so politicized…”
What’s on display here is the radicalization of the Republican Party. There is no equivalent on the “Left” to an official GOP account propagating vaccine misinformation, endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands.
The tweet has since been deleted - but there’s not going to be an apology or any kind of substantive retraction, of course, because Republicans either actually believe this nonsense or consider this type of bad-faith propaganda a legitimate tactic in the war against the Left.
Is there a line? Anything that’s *not* permitted? Anything that’s so extreme, so dangerous that it’s not justified in defense against what they see as the radically Un-American leftist threat? Republicans are giving us their answer every day - and that should terrify us.
I get the impulse to just ignore Marjorie Taylor Greene. And if what’s on display here were just the extremist nonsense of a fringe figure, it’d be best to do exactly that. This, however, isn’t just Greene’s extremism - it is increasingly that of the Republican Party itself.
The fact that the Republican Party embraces and elevates Greene and other extremists like her constitutes an acute danger to democracy. We can’t allow ourselves to become numb to how bizarre, how radical, how dangerous these developments are.
And let’s not be lulled into a false sense of security by the clownishness, the ridiculousness of it all. Some of history’s most successful authoritarians were considered goons and buffoons by their contemporaries - until they became goons and buffoons in power.
“Parents,” “working class,” “Christians” - in the American political discourse, whenever such categories are used without any qualifier, they basically just mean “white.” Because “white” is still widely seen as normal, as the norm: as what really counts and defines the nation.
People are not necessarily doing it deliberately. When called out, Todd immediately concedes the point. But that only reinforces how pervasive this idea of “normal” America as *white America* still is in the collective imaginary: It just comes naturally to Chuck Todd.
This is important because it fundamentally structures the conversation. Just like @nhannahjones says, Todd’s framing privileges the interests and sensibilities of *white* parents by elevating them to the status of “regular” (read: justified, legitimate) parental concerns.