America at a Crossroads: Multiracial Democracy or Authoritarian Reactionary Rule
My piece for @GuardianUS - on what is at stake in the fight over voting rights legislation, what is behind the Republican assault on democracy, and why this is such a crucial moment in U.S. history.
MLK Day came and went, and it doesn’t look like federal legislation to counter the Republican assault on the political system at the state and local levels is coming. Time is running out: It might soon become impossible to stop the accelerating slide into authoritarianism.
The country is rapidly turning into a dysfunctional pseudo-democratic system at the national level – and on the state level will be divided into democracy in one half of the states, and authoritarian one-party rule in the other. As a whole, America would cease to be a democracy.
If that sounds far-fetched, remember that it would in many ways constitute a return to what was the norm until quite recently. Before the 1960s, America was fairly democratic only if you happened to be a white Christian man – and something entirely different if you were not.
The Reconstruction period after the Civil War was a notable exception. But America’s first attempt at biracial democracy was quickly drowned in white reactionary violence and a flurry of supposedly race-neutral laws, establishing an apartheid regime that lasted nearly a century.
We must acknowledge that the stakes in the current fight over voting rights are enormously high. And not just for America: As a similar conflict is shaping the political, social, and cultural landscape across the “West,” this is a struggle of world-historic significance.
Far-right movements across the West rejoiced when Donald Trump became president because they saw his election as evidence that multiracial, pluralistic democracy couldn’t work, that the reactionary counter-mobilization would ultimately prevail. America needs to prove them wrong.
Will the U.S. finally become a functioning multiracial, pluralistic democracy - or will the history books record the years from the mid-1960s through the 2020s as a fairly short-lived and ultimately aborted experiment, before a more restricted, white man’s democracy was restored?
This is a bizarre attack by Politico’s chief Europe correspondent on @ardenthistorian’s book about the Christian Right: It completely distorts what the book does, even alleging fraud, which is utterly shameful. A bad-faith hit job of the worst kind. “Journalism” this ain’t.
The book is not beyond reproach, none ever is. But @ardenthistorian’s main arguments are in line with the latest scholarship by U.S. historians, political scientists, and sociologists - if that’s proof of “anti-American sentiment,” then I guess those disciplines are all guilty?
Don’t believe me? That’s fine. But you know, you should be expected to have done at least some of the reading - I suggest starting with the latest work by people like Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Anthea Butler, or Robert P. Jones. Are they all just selling anti-American distortions? Hm.
That’s either a devastating indictment of the world’s other deliberative bodies - or proof that the myth of American exceptionalism is still very much distorting the perspective on the country’s past and present.
Snark aside, I believe Rep. Raskin might not necessarily approve of this mythical notion of the Senate as the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” but may be recurring to it as a way of issuing a challenge: Don’t you want to hold yourselves to a higher standard?
The problem is, however, that too many people will read this as affirmation - and conceptualize the current situation as an outlier, a disgraceful aberration from the Senate’s supposedly noble past and true character.
This is the clearest example of how too much of the establishment media is actively complicit in the Republican assault on the political system in the exact way it was during the Obama years: All Republicans have to do is make functional governance impossible and blame Democrats.
I’m as frustrated as anyone by the fact that some establishment democrats still insist a return to “normalcy” is imminent (any minute now!), when Republicans could not be clearer about the fact that they consider Democratic governance fundamentally illegitimate.
Part 2 (of 3) of my conversation with @ardenthistorian on the @KreuzundFlagge podcast: We are back debating the past and present of U.S. democracy and what is animating the anti-democratic radicalization of the American Right.
We’re covering a lot of ground in these podcasts, and they’re helping me, personally, to get the big picture right. Here is an incomplete list of the topics we discussed – and once again, I’ll include a few links to previous reflections to provide some more evidence (in English):
How the current onslaught on democracy can be situated in the longer-term context of democracy’s contested history since the Civil War, and the evolving forms of anti-democratic obstruction on the Right:
In U.S. history, the price for extending democracy has always been political instability - or: division - because demands for equality are inherently destabilizing to a political order of white elite rule.
Sinema chooses to uphold that order. The rest is self-serving noise.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t opportunistic considerations shaping her choice: She certainly wants to present herself as the one who stands up to the “radicals” in her own party – and apparently, she believes this might even carry her to the presidency one day…
But ideology circumscribes and defines the realm of opportunity. If Sinema were strongly committed to the idea of multiracial democracy, this type of opportunism wouldn’t be an option for her right now.
Last week, some rightwing media misrepresented something I posted on Twitter as evidence of liberal hysteria - yet another woke professor proving how illiberal the Left really is. What else is new?! But: What they said is actually quite revealing. So, here are some thoughts:
Both “Reason” and the “Washington Examiner” targeted a relatively innocuous thread in which I praised the recent “Every day is Jan. 6 now” intervention by the NYT editorial board, but also criticized the paper for not really following that maxim in any consistent way.
According to these rightwing outlets, what I wrote was a manifestation of deranged alarmism, typical liberal hysteria – an outrageously illiberal attack on all conservatives, an undemocratic call to deplatform and boycott all politicians of a major party.