The alarmed reactions to Joe Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Courts reveal a lot about the conservative psyche and the pervasive siege mentality on the Right: To a reactionary white patriarchal movement, a Black woman rising is a threat.
Conservatives feel threatened by Biden’s announcement because they understand it symbolizes the recognition that having white men dominate the powerful institutions of American life is a problem that needs to be rectified.
Conservatives see Biden’s announcement as an indication of how powerful the forces of liberalism, “wokeism,” and multiculturalism – those radically “Un-American” ideas that are threatening “real” (read: white Christian patriarchal) America – have already become.
The fact that a reactionary majority will dominate the Supreme Court for a generation doesn’t do much to alleviate these fears. Conservatives realize that their vision for American society has come under pressure, and not just politically, but even more so culturally.
It is not just political power the Right seeks, but cultural domination and affirmation. And in the cultural sphere, the shift in power away from white conservatives has been more pronounced, leading to the recurring rightwing moral panics of recent years.
It has traditionally been the prerogative of a white male elite to determine what is and what is not acceptable in U.S. society. That prerogative has come under fire, and it’s not something the judiciary can fully restore.
Conservatives understand Biden’s announcement as evidence that the dreaded forces responsible for the general assault on white male rule keep ascending within America’s institutions. Whether or not it has any immediate effect on the Court’s decisions, that’s a threat.
Biden’s public pledge represents an affirmation of multiracial pluralism. That’s why it matters. It’s an acknowledgment that the traditional dominance of white men was never the result of meritocratic structures, but of a discriminatory system that needs to be dismantled.
A Black woman on the Court will help redefine what the American political, social, and cultural elite looks like – reshaping ideas in the collective imaginary of the nation of who gets to be at the top. As multiracial, pluralistic democracy is under assault, that matters a lot.
I am teaching a graduate course on the “21st Century History Wars” this semester. If anybody is interested in following along here on Twitter, I’d be happy to keep a running diary of what we read and discuss. A few thoughts on the outline of the course and the idea behind it:
Not just in the United States, but on either side of the Atlantic, we are witnessing intense conflicts over questions of cultural hegemony and national identity that have catapulted debates over “history” to the top of the political agenda.
These are struggles over who gets to define the national story and what place the legacies of racism, slavery, colonialism, and imperialism should occupy in it – with serious implications for the political, social, and cultural order in the present.
It is worth diving into the conservative reactions to Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. They reveal a lot about the conservative psyche – and why the announcement is important even though, as @ElieNYC notes, the Right will still control the Court: 1/
Conservative politicians, intellectuals, and activists certainly didn’t try to hide their disdain. Even though it’s unclear who the candidate will be, they already know they won’t support this “beneficiary of affirmative action” and fight against this “lesser Black woman.” 2/
If you bemoan “exclusionary criteria of race and sex” only if and when they result in the selection of someone who is *not* a white man, you’re telling on yourself. 115 people appointed to the Court in 232 years – 7 have not been white men. Seven. 3/
As @marceelias notes, it also includes this absolute gem:
“Whether the federalization of election rules that Democrats were pushing in their voting bills would have made the system somewhat better or somewhat worse…”
What a bizarre piece of reactionary centrist propaganda.
I just wrote at length about why I find the “anti-alarmism” genre so unconvincing - but I was focusing on a liberal version that is based on a misunderstanding of the history of democracy in America. This is something else entirely: A reactionary anti-alarmist smoke grenade.
Yes, the author decries the “wounds inflicted on American democracy by Donald Trump and the Republican Party” - but that’s standard operating procedure for reactionary centrists and “moderate” conservatives alike: Declare Trumpism and multiracial democracy equally illegitimate.
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.
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/
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.