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
Sunday reading: Why the Extremists Took Over on the Right
I wrote about the escalating sense of besiegement that has fueled the rise of dangerous people and truly radical ideas that fully define the Right today.
This week’s piece (link below):
We have been talking a lot - and with good reason - about the “crisis of liberal democracy.” But in crucial ways, it is the conception of “real America” as a white Christian patriarchal homeland that has come under enormous pressure. That’s why the Right is freaking out.
Socially, culturally, and – most importantly, perhaps – demographically, the country has moved away from the rightwing ideal since the middle of the twentieth century. As a result, the conservative hold on power has become tenuous.
Fear of a pluralizing America is fueling a radicalization out of a sense of weakness and besiegement.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link below):
🧵
What is America? Who gets to belong? How much democracy, and for whom? Those have always been contested issues. But the fact that this struggle now overlaps so clearly with party lines is the result of a rather recent reconfiguration.
That is the fundamental reality of U.S. politics: National identity and democracy have become partisan issues. This existential dimension of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans overshadows all other considerations, it shapes all areas of U.S. politics.
In the MAGA imagination, America is simultaneously threatened by outsiders – invaders who are “poisoning the blood” of the nation, as Trump has put it – and by the “enemy within.” The core promise of Trumpism is to purge those inherently connected “threats.”
To the Trumpists, the “enemy within” - those radical “leftists” and “globalists” – are as acutely dangerous as the invaders from without.
In order to restore the nation to former glory, to Make America Great Again, it has as to be “purified” – the enemies have to be purged.
According to the Trumpists, only the providential leader can guide the nation to its re-birth and former glory – “Only I,” Trump loves to say. The rightwing base is all in on this, fiercely loyal to Trump personally, bound to him by a cult of personality.
What does the U.S. look like in five or ten years?
I was asked to reflect on this question, alongside other scholars. In a stable democracy, the range of plausible outcomes is narrow. But for America, it now includes complete democratic breakdown.
There should not have been any doubt about the intention of the Trumpists. They desire to erect a form of plebiscitary autocracy, constantly invoking the true “will of the people” while aggressively narrowing the boundaries of who gets to belong and whose rights are recognized.
At every turn, the response to the rise of Trumpism has been hampered by a lack of political imagination – a lingering sense that “It cannot happen here” (or not anymore), fueled by a deep-seated mythology of exceptionalism, progress gospel, and willful historical ignorance.
I wrote about why even critical observers underestimated the speed and scope of the Trumpist assault, why they overestimated democratic resilience – about what America is now, and what comes next?
New piece (link below)
I take stock of where we are after two months of Trumpist rule, explore that space between (no longer) democracy and full-scale autocracy where America exists now, reflect on what competitive authoritarianism means in theory and practice, and recalibrate my expectations.
I revisit “The Path to Authoritarianism,” a crucial essay Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way published in Foreign Affairs in early February. It captured their expectations at the outset of the Trumpist regime – a powerful warning that has nevertheless been overtaken by events already.
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.