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
There has been a ton of attention lately for Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led planning operation for a more efficient, more ruthless rightwing regime - peaking in reaction to Trump pretending he doesn’t know anything about it, which is an obvious, brazen lie. 2/
Public attention is necessary: In a very real sense, these plans are on the ballot in November. However, it’s also turned “Project 2025” into a bit of a catchall term - when we should be precise about what it tells us about Trump’s role and about the Right more broadly. 3/
Trump is not the mastermind behind Project 2025. It’s worse: The rightwing establishment has radicalized to the point where their plans are entirely in line with his vengeful desires.
My new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about the relationship between Trump and Project 2025, between the inner circle of MAGA world on the one hand and the institutional and intellectual elites of American conservatism on the other: A radicalizing alliance against democratic pluralism. 2/
Donald Trump lied when he declared he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and knew no one involved in the operation. Not exactly shocking, I know. But there is something more interesting and revealing going on here than just habitual lying. 3/
I took a deep dive into the “Promise to America” Heritage president Kevin Roberts has offered in his foreword to the "Project 2025" report: It perfectly captures the siege mentality, self-victimization, and grievance-driven lust for revenge that are fueling the Right's plans. 2/
Kevin Roberts is not a moderate imposter who pretends to be hardcore so that he can blend in with the MAGAs because that is the direction the wind is blowing. He is a reactionary Catholic and part of the Religious Right – a true believer in the reactionary political project. 3/
An argument I’m trying to make here is that a second Trump term would be worse not only because the radical Right would be better prepared, but also because they would be operating under much more favorable circumstances.
With a much more extreme Supreme Court, for instance.
Back in power, the radical Right could count on a reactionary supermajority on the Supreme Court - something they didn’t have during Trump’s first term.
Today’s disastrous, truly extreme immunity ruling should be an urgent reminder of what an absolute game-changer that is.
Additionally, this would not be the same Right that came to power in 2017. That starts with Trump himself. The idea that he has always been the same, just Trump being Trump, is massively misleading and obscures the rather drastic radicalization of the Right’s undisputed leader.
I wrote a three-part series about the worldview of the people behind “Project 2025,” the policy agenda and detailed plans it has produced, and what all this tells us about the radicalization of the American right.
It is difficult to convey how much establishment conservatism has been taken over by anti-democratic extremism.
“Project 2025” is actually helpful in that sense: Rightwing leaders are maximally clear about the reactionary vision they want to impose on the country. 3/
I got to talk to @chrislhayes about “Project 2025” on his #WITHpod
If you want more, I wrote a three-part series on the Right’s radical plans to use government as an authoritarian tool to impose a reactionary vision on America. Some thoughts:
Part I focuses on the worldview of the people behind “Project 2025.”
They see themselves as noble defenders of “real America” against a totalitarian “woke,” “globalist” assault. “Project 2025” is their declaration of war on multiracial pluralism: 2/
In his foreword to the "Project 2025" report, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts offers his “Promise to America”: It perfectly captures the escalating siege mentality, self-victimization, and grievance-driven lust for revenge that are fueling the Right's plans. 3/