The fever dream of reactionary centrism: A center-right re-alignment of American politics, all in the name of defending democracy against Trump - while also upholding the traditional order against the forces of multiracial pluralism. Wow.
In this vision, Trump and the excesses of militant Trumpism are excluded from the “respectable” spectrum of American politics – but so are all the “radical Leftists” like Bernie Sanders, and all those “woke” activists and crazy “critical race theorists.”
The desired result is a new normal that not only glorifies the status quo, but actually restores a more secure white elite dominance. With the exception of Big Lie-inspired election subversion, Cheney does not seem to have a problem with the GOP’s other undemocratic tools.
Cheney has demonstrated no desire to protect voting rights against the hundreds of voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans on the state level since the last election, or to outlaw the type of aggressive partisan gerrymandering that is being pursued in GOP-led states.
While being celebrated as an alliance against authoritarianism, what such calls for a Biden/Cheney ticket represent is a desire for a less democracy – or, to be more specific: for a more restricted version of democracy that keeps the forces of multiracial pluralism in check.
For the record: I’ve seen several people use the term “reactionary centrism” (which is good, because it’s an incredibly apt concept) - but the clearest, most insightful dissection I have encountered comes from @RottenInDenmark - full credit to Michael Hobbes.
Reactionary centrism, David Brooks edition.
“Centrism”: Anything that allows people like Brooks - a mostly wealthy, white, male elite of self-proclaimed moderates - to decide what is / is not acceptable.
“Leftish agenda”: Anything that deviates from status quo-fundamentalism.
Ah yes, Biden went too far with his “leftish agenda” when he pushed his socialist program through via Reconciliation, then ruthlessly abolished the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation and democratizing reforms, then… wait… that can’t be right…
Ok, now I got it: Biden went too far with his “leftish agenda” when he went hard after everyone responsible for January 6, then dramatically raised taxes for billionaires, then fully endorsed the teaching of CRT at elementary school, then… wait… that’s not it either?
Alright, let me try again: Biden went too far with his “leftish agenda” when he single-handedly opened all borders, then signed the Green New Deal into law while also outlawing cars, effective immediately, then abolished Christmas, then… uhm…
Well, anyway: A more “centrist” direction is urgently needed!
Biden/Cheney 2024! To save “democracy,” of course.
You have to admire how lazy the term “leftish agenda” is. “Leftish”: a lot broader than just “left,” so deliciously vague. “I’m not gonna define it or be specific… Don’t even bother asking what is ‘left’ about it. You know what I mean, the stuff we don’t like. Leftish!” Perfect.
These “centrist” confessions would be revealing under any circumstance; in the context of a now-or-never struggle to protect democracy, with Biden finally and forcefully intervening to get voting rights legislation passed, the reactionary ideology could not be more obvious.
These “centrist” pleas always entail a barely veiled threat: “If you don’t break with these woke radicals and their ‘leftish’ agenda, you leave us no choice - be reasonable or we’ll have to vote for the other team!”
The eternal permission structure of the reactionary centrist.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People who claim Zelensky was at fault yesterday and should have been more “diplomatic” or “respectful” are either deliberately propagating the Trumpist attack line – or they fundamentally misunderstand what the Trumpist project is and who is now in power in the United States.
There is this pervasive idea that Trump doesn’t really mean it, has no real position, and can therefore be steered and manipulated by tactical and diplomatic finesse; or maybe he’s just a businessman looking for a great deal. But that’s all irrelevant here.
Trump himself has been very consistent about his preference for foreign autocrats, especially Putin, and his (at best) disinterest and siding with Ukraine and (actually) explicit antagonism towards not only Zelensky, but Europe’s democracies more generally.
MAGA, the German Far Right, and the Transnational Assault on Democracy
A reflection on the German far right, Musk’s interference in the German election, and why the MAGA-AfD alliance isn’t nearly as irresistible as they want us to believe.
Some thoughts (and link below):
🧵
The results of the German election are in. On the one hand: About three quarters of the voting public stuck with democratic parties. On the other: The AfD got 20.8 percent of the vote - by far the strongest result the far right has achieved in Germany since 1945.
After it was founded in 2013, the AfD quickly evolved from what was initially mainstream-rightwing-to-reactionary territory into a far-right party that fully rejects liberal democracy and is undoubtedly the political home of Germany’s rightwing extremists.
I wrote a long profile of him: He’s one of the architects of Project 2025, an avowed Christian nationalist, and a radical ideologue of the “post-constitutional” Right
Vought is at war with pluralistic democracy (link below):
🧵
Vought will be singularly focused on bending the entire government machine to Trump’s will. He believes that any check on the power of Donald Trump, who Vought literally describes as a “gift of God,” is illegitimate. There is no line he doesn’t feel justified to cross.
Key to understanding Vought’s worldview is the idea that the constitutional order - and with it the “natural” order itself - has been destroyed: The revolution has already happened, “the Left” won. Therefore, conservatives err when they try to preserve what is no more.
Russell Vought will be a key figure in the regime, as competent as he is radical. He’s one of the architects of Project 2025, an avowed Christian nationalist, an ideologue of the “post-constitutional” Right.
Key to Vought’s worldview is the idea that the constitutional order - and with it the “natural” order itself - has been destroyed: The revolution has already happened, “the Left” won. Therefore, conservatives categorically err when they try to preserve what is no more.
Power now lies with a “permanent ruling class” of leftist elites who control all major institutions of life and especially the “woke and weaponized” agencies of the state. In order to defeat them, conservatives must become “radical constitutionalists” - and take radical action.
Lots of talk about the OMB because of the utterly illegal funding freeze it issued.
A reminder that Russell Vought, the guy Trump wants to lead the agency, seeks to “traumatize” civil servants, use the military to suppress protests, and sees Trump as an agent of God’s will. 🧵
Vought will be singularly focused on bending the entire government machine to Trump’s will. He steadfastly believes that any check on the president’s power – on the power of Donald Trump, specifically, who Vought literally describes as a “gift of God” – is illegitimate.
Vought may look like a boring bureaucrat. But he is a committed ideologue, convinced to be fighting a noble war to defend his “real America” of white Christian patriarchal rule, where people like him get to dominate the public square and define who belongs.
Been asked so many times: “What do you think will happen?”
We will know a lot more soon. But I do think it’s helpful to clarify expectations. The baseline, for me: Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent. Yet the situation is significantly more dangerous than in 2017.
🧵1/
We must resist the temptation to perpetuate Trump’s constant attempts to assert dominance by reflexively despairing over our supposedly hopeless situation. MAGA desires to project power and strength – something we should subvert rather than confirm. 2/
Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent, and obscuring that distinction is an act of defeatism that only serves the regime. There is a vast gulf between Trump’s authoritarian aspirations on the one hand and the realities of a complex modern state and society on the other. 3/