On “anti-alarmism” - and why I find it unconvincing.
I agree we must not surrender to fatalism. But the authoritarian onslaught on the system is accelerating, as is the Republican Party’s anti-democratic radicalization. Yes, U.S. democracy is in acute danger. Some thoughts: 1/
This piece criticizes all the “keening and whingeing” in which Liberals are eagerly engaging according to @TimothyNoah1. While I agree that empty “Democracy in Danger” media rituals are not necessarily useful, it does not follow that the underlying diagnosis is wrong. 2/
I understand Noah’s exasperation. I’ve been getting a lot of “It’s too late anyway! Why do you still care?! Let’s all move to Canada!!” comments too, and while I don’t blame anyone for being frustrated and/or distraught, this attitude is indeed not going to safe democracy. 3/
However, why not grapple in earnest with the fact that it’s not just “Liberals being Liberals” who are diagnosing U.S. democracy to be in a critical condition, but a wide range of democracy scholars from various disciplines? Dismiss their warnings at your own peril. 4/
Let’s look at the substance of what Noah calls a “reality check”: Is he right that American democracy is a lot more stable than the tendency to self-flagellate will allow “Liberals” to see? That Trump is losing, Republicans are weak, and the institutions are holding? 5/
“Trump did not win his war on American institutions,” Noah assures us, his coup attempt failed. But this is where the focus on Trump himself is misleading. It’s the anti-democratic radicalization of the Republican Party and the Right more broadly we need to look at. 6/
Noah doesn’t deny the state-level GOP attempts to undermine democracy – but he says they’re not working. He mentions voter suppression efforts, in particular, and how they haven’t had the desired effect, may even have backfired for Republicans. 7/
Noah is right to note that not everything Republicans are doing is destined to work – they are not evil geniuses who have figured out an unbeatable formula to destroy democracy. And yet, singling out *this* flawed attack or *that* backfiring measure obscures the big picture. 8/
Republicans are not simply throwing stuff against the wall, desperately hoping that anything might stick. They are systematically pursuing an anti-democratic project to entrench white Christian dominance, and they have a comprehensive strategy to put it into practice. 9/
In states where Republicans are in charge, they are fully committed to erecting one-party-rule systems. The playbook is always the same, as I tried to outline in the thread below: 10/
Aggressive partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, facilitating future election subversion by purging state and local election boards and giving Republican-led state legislatures more power over how elections are run… 11/
They are flanking these measures by criminalizing protest in order to preempt a mobilization of civil society, and by encouraging white militants to use whatever force they please to suppress these potential protests by leftwing “radicals”… 12/
Finally, Republicans are conducting a broad-scale offensive against everything and everyone criticizing the legitimacy of white nationalist rule – past, present, and future. They clearly understand the importance of being in control of the national story. 13/
Again, no one measure is guaranteeing success. But think of it as the anti-democracy version of the Swiss cheese model of pandemic response: Every single slice has holes, but if you stack enough of them on top of each other, you achieve robust, multi-layered protection. 14/
Noah thinks we need to show “some fight” and work harder. I don’t deny it. But I am highly skeptical of the general idea that you can just out-mobilize authoritarianism. Look at the situation of Democrats in Wisconsin: How do you out-organize a stable one-party rule system? 15/
An international perspective might also give us pause: There are striking similarities between the Republican playbook and the tactics Viktor Orbán successfully used in Hungary to establish authoritarian rule – did Hungarians just not organize hard enough? 16/
That brings me to Noah’s overall diagnosis: “these assaults against democracy are a sign of Republican weakness, not Republican strength,” he claims – and he’s absolutely right. But contrary to his argument, that actually makes them more, not less dangerous. 17/
No one understands better than Republicans themselves that due to political, cultural, and most importantly demographic changes, Republicans no longer have majority support for their core political project of upholding and entrenching white Christian patriarchal dominance. 18/
Republicans understand clearly that in a functioning democratic system, they would have to either widen their focus beyond the interests and sensibilities of white conservatives, which they are not willing to do; or relinquish power, which they categorically reject. 19/
Many Republicans have chosen a different path and are now openly embracing authoritarianism – because their previous attempts to uphold white Christian patriarchal rule within the confines of a restricted version of democracy have failed. 20/
The real question is: How far are they willing to go? Is there a limit to the kind of anti-democratic, authoritarian behavior they’re willing to tolerate? I think a realistic assessment of the existing evidence doesn’t provide much reason for optimism. 21/
Republicans consider themselves the sole proponents of “real” (read: conservative white Christian patriarchal) America, and they are convinced to be waging a noble war against insidious forces that are threatening the country. 22/
Conversely, they have been painting the Democratic Party as not just a political opponent, but an “Un-American” enemy – a fundamentally illegitimate political faction captured by the radical forces of leftism, liberalism, wokeism, and multiculturalism. 23/
By portraying themselves as the sole defenders of “real” America and the enemy as an acute threat to the survival of the nation, they’ve already given themselves permission to unite behind Trump, the right kind of “bruiser” and “brawler” in this existential struggle. 24/
They have already given themselves permission to tolerate and even elevate extremists in their midst – people whose radicalism most Republicans see as justified, who openly indulge in fantasies of committing acts of fascistic violence against the political enemy. 25/
They have already given themselves permission to make every conservative white person a deputy of the white nationalist state, tasked with upholding the reactionary order against any perceived threat – an open embrace of a fundamentally authoritarian vision of society. 26/
And in the reactionary intellectual sphere, people have given themselves permission to go even further and completely redraw the boundaries of the body politic, declaring that everyone who voted for Joe Biden has forfeited the right to be considered American. 27/
Noah is right to remind us that Republicans are radicalizing because the country has been moving away from them, that democracy is not doomed. And I tend to agree the most likely scenario is not Trump emerging triumphant as an American Caesar after 2024. 28/
But without effective federal legislation to protect and reform democracy, the country is eminently likely to turn into a dysfunctional pseudo-democratic system at the national level – and on the state level will be divided into one half democracy, one half something else. 29/
If democratizing reforms and federal standards do not come, Republicans will erect one-party rule systems wherever they are in charge and install white Christian nationalist regimes with or without the support of the majority of voters. 30/
Noah says Liberals tend to be alarmists. But I keep encountering something else: Too many people will agree that yes, absolutely, Trump is an authoritarian menace – but still scoff at the idea that America might actually cease to be a democracy very soon. 31/
The disconnect results at least partially from a distorted perspective on American history – a focus on the idea that as an “old, consolidated democracy,” the country is basically immune to authoritarianism, that it cannot happen here! 32/
But the political system that was stable and consolidated for most of U.S. history was a white man’s democracy, or racial caste democracy – a restricted form of democracy that deliberately left a specific political, social, and economic order largely intact and untouched. 33/
There is nothing old, stable, or consolidated about multiracial, pluralistic democracy in America. It only started less than 60 years ago, and the conflict over whether or not it should be allowed to endure and prosper has dominated politics ever since. It can happen here. 34/
You think going out there and acting to support democracy in concrete ways is more useful than reading yet another analysis of what is behind the accelerating assault on the political system? Fine. But indulging in “anti-alarmism” isn’t helping either. 35/
No, we must not give in to cynicism and fatalism; yes, we need to channel our concern – that feeling of being alarmed – in productive ways. But the defense of democracy has to start from an unflinching diagnosis of where we are and how acute the threat is – or it will fail. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Matthew Yglesias learn the difference between a pandemic and an endemic situation challenge.
But hey, he’s “a little skeptical,” and whatever doesn’t immediately and intuitively make sense to the Arbiter of Reason, whatever makes him uncomfortable, must be derided as nonsense.
This type of pundit never starts from a position of trying to understand what strikes him (they’re almost always men, almost always white) as odd or surprising. He considers himself the arbiter of what is and what is not reasonable - often without much substantive knowledge.
This is indicative of a striking lack of humility and unwillingness to listen - which is par for the the course for a certain type of pundit. Yglesias, Silver, Mounk, Barro, many more like them: They don’t examine, they judge; they don’t reflect, they determine.
The Senate - “the world’s greatest deliberative body”?
Let’s abandon such mythical exceptionalism that distorts our perspective on history and politics. America can have the Senate in its current form *or* liberal democracy, but probably not both.
The U.S. Senate is deliberately and inherently undemocratic – an anti-democratic distortion that stands in the way of America finally realizing the promise of multiracial, pluralistic democracy. It is biased towards white people, with or without the filibuster.
In some fundamental ways, the Senate is working as intended. It has always been one of the most powerful undemocratic distortions in the political system – and not by accident, but because that’s what it was designed to be.
This is from today’s “Defeat the Mandates” rally. We went down to the Lincoln Memorial yesterday, unaware that preparations for this event were already in full swing. They were blasting a song with the chorus “We don’t care what they say - It’s God over the Government.”
A little more form the lyrics of that song: “Prepare for war, ready for revolution - We don’t care what they say - It’s God over the Government.”
At the Lincoln Memorial. In the year 2022.
None of this is surprising. But I must say that the extent to which militant theocratic / fascistic movements are enabled to assert their dominance in the public sphere under the guise of “pushing back” against the government’s pandemic response worries and frightens me a lot.
As is often the case with Biden (and many Democratic officials), we can only hope that he understands the “get along” stuff to be utter nonsense but considers it useful rhetoric / good politics - as opposed to actually still believing in the chimera of “bipartisanship”.
Unfortunately, as @perrybaconjr outlines in this great piece, the evidence suggests that what is on display here is not just politics and tactics, but a manifestation of deeply held ideological views that keep distorting the perspective on a blatantly anti-democratic GOP.
How can we explain 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?
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.