Thread by @biblioracle

Always fascinated about this particular genre of op-ed. Want to explore why I don't think it's doing what the authors would like to claim they're trying to do.

The surface-level positioning here is an intention to highlight the superior threat of the Magaverse on our democratic processes as compared to the progressive left. The authors would claim they're trying to convince conservatives to reject Maga. they are not achieving this, tho.

First, if the goal is to highlight the disproportionate authoritarian threat of the right Magaverse, spending over 1/3 of your piece to trot out the case for left/liberal authoritarian tendencies is not an effective rhetorical choice.

Sure, you might nod towards "both sides" doing bad stuff, but you would not spend so much real estate making a case against the side you think is the smaller threat, not if your goal is to alert people to the greater threat, anyway.

This structure serves to validate the fever dreams of the Magaverse that is fueling the authoritarian drive. That their evidence for what's happening on the left is so loose and tendentious suggests they're not actually making a genuine effort to illuminate the problem.

Brief time out from the big picture rhetorical analysis for a closer look from @jbouie on the wild over interpretations of the evidence shared in the piece. This is not an honest and transparent piece of work.

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1484166302407303174

See also from @jbouie. You could pick through their case for left authoritarian tendencies and find holes in each bit of evidence. You have to then question why they're so determined, in this context to include it in their argument.

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1484163519163645955

Anyway, back to the big picture and why this piece is not actually trying to persuade conservatives to abandon the Magaverse. While they cite some of the big hits, Jan 6, Tucker Carlson, there's also some absences that are telling.

There is no mention of the educational gag orders that are being introduced in state legislatures across the country. There is no discussion of voting rights. The discussion is entirely at the level of political process, rather than policy. Why is that?

We should also take notice of where this piece is published and the audience for the New York Times. Who is in the audience that may be open to switching their stance? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

If the genuine goal is to persuade conservatives to more forcefully reject the Maga wing, you would not write the piece in this way for this audience. It is poorly designed for that purpose and published in the wrong forum. So why write it? Why publish it?

The piece is a performance. It is a move by the authors to try to steer the discourse towards a status quo where people like them have an outsized influence over the opinion ecosystem. It's from the same place as all the "here's what Biden should do" pieces.

What's most important about all of these is that they are fundamentally rooted in politics, not policy. Where policy is discussed it is in the service of winning at politics. It's all performative B.S. It's not worth the time I've give it, and I'm now ashamed of myself.