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.
This whole chimera of “pro-Americanism” or “anti-Americanism” is useless. Those are ideological terms, intended to (de-)legitimize the enemy, with little substantive value. The sharpest critique of the American Right comes from American scholars and observers. Now what?
The substantive deficiencies of Karnitschnig’s critique are glaring. But they don’t explain the nastiness on display here. I’m not going to speculate about what else is animating this assault, but let’s not pretend this in anything but an aggressive character assassination.
This isn’t a serious critique, it’s certainly not intended to stimulate a substantive debate, and it’s not journalism by any reasonable definition. A terrible look for Politico - and for anyone applauding this kind of uninformed and / or disingenuous hit job.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sunday Reading: The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
This week’s piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I focus on some of Modern Conservatism’s intellectual leaders in the 1950s/60s - Buckley and Bozell, Whittaker Chambers’ diagnosis of liberalism, and Frank Meyer’s view of the civil rights movement - to investigate the origins of a radicalizing dynamic that led to Trumpism. 2/
Crucially, today’s self-identifying “counter-revolutionaries” on the Right do not think they represent a departure – in fact, they claim to be fighting in the name of the *real* essence that defined Modern Conservatism, which in their mind now very much requires radicalism. 3/
The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
New piece (link in bio):
What should we call the pro-Trump forces that are dominating the American Right today? Conservatives? Reactionaries? Something else? The terminology really matters because it reflects and shapes how we think about the nature of Trumpism and how to situate it in U.S. history.
We need to distinguish between colloquial or abstract philosophical notions of what it means to be (small-c) “conservative” - and the political project that referred to itself (and was widely referred to) as the Conservative Movement in post-1950s America.
Meet the Ideologue of the “Post-Constitutional” Right
Russell Vought, one of the architects behind Project 2025, believes there is nothing left to conserve. He desires revolution – and to burn down the system.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about Russel Vought’s ideology of “radical constitutionalism” that captures the defining sensibility on the Trumpist Right: The Left has command of America, all that is noble has been destroyed, nothing short of a radical “counter-revolution” can now save the nation. 2/
Vought’s case is emblematic of the Right’s trajectory more broadly: From, at least rhetorically, claiming “small government” principles and “constitutional conservatism” to an ever more aggressive desire to mobilize the coercive powers of the state against the “enemy within.” 3/
Meet the Ideologue of the “Post-Constitutional” Right
Russell Vought, one of the architects behind Project 2025, believes there is nothing left to conserve. He desires revolution – and to burn down the system.
New piece (link in bio):
I wrote about Russel Vought’s ideology of “radical constitutionalism” that captures the defining sensibility on the Trumpist Right: The Left has command of America, all that is noble has been destroyed, nothing short of a radical “counter-revolution” can now save the nation.
Vought’s case is emblematic of the Right’s trajectory more broadly: From – at least rhetorically – claiming “small government” principles and “constitutional conservatism” to an ever more aggressive desire to mobilize the coercive powers of the state against the “enemy within.”
Why the Stakes in this Election Are So Enormously High
Democracy itself is on the ballot. If Trump wins, the extreme Right will be in a much better position than ever before to abolish it.
Some thoughts from my new piece - while we all nervously wait (link in bio):
🧵1/
Consider this my closing argument: As of right now, only one of the two major parties in the United States, the Democratic Party, for all its many flaws, is a (small-d) democratic party. The other one is firmly in the hands of a radicalizing ethno-nationalist movement. 2/
The fault lines in the struggle over whether or not the democratic experiment should be continued map exactly onto the fault lines of the struggle between the two parties. Democracy is now a partisan issue. Therefore, in every election, democracy itself is on the ballot. 3/
Combine the myth of American exceptionalism, (willful) historical ignorance, and a lack of political imagination and the result is a situation in which a lot of people refuse to take the Trumpist threat seriously.
There is a pervasive idea that in a country like the United States, with a supposedly centuries-long tradition of stable, consolidated democracy, authoritarianism simply has no realistic chance to succeed, that “We” have never experienced authoritarianism.
But the political system that was stable for most of U.S. history was a white man’s democracy, or racial caste democracy. There is absolutely nothing old or consolidated about *multiracial, pluralistic democracy* in America. It only started less than 60 years ago.