Here’s the reading list for this course I am currently teaching. It’s somewhat preliminary: It’s a new course and changes may occur, depending on where our discussions take us. I’ll also certainly add more primary sources. Follow along at #GEST535
We started with a look at some big-picture takes on the History Wars and a broader reflection on an important question: Why is everybody talking about history? #GEST535
This week, we looked at some previous iterations of the History Wars, specifically at the conflict over National History Standards in the 90s, and tried to situate the current anti-“CRT”/ education bills in that longer-term context. #GEST535
In Week 4, a dive deep into the 1619 Project – and would you believe it, we’ll actually read it, discuss it, something that quite a few critics have not done, I’d guess.
In Week 5, a comprehensive look at the reactions to and the debate surrounding the 1619 Project. #GEST535
In Week 6, we’ll talk about how (not?) to bring history into the debate over American authoritarianism and discuss: Did it happen / is it happening here? The Fascism Question. #GEST535
Week 7 will be our last deep dive into the current U.S. history wars – we’re looking at the fight over Confederate monuments and, more generally, the Confederacy in American memory and politics. #GEST535
In Week 8, we’ll move across the Atlantic and start our exploration of the inter- and transnational dimensions of the History Wars. We’ll start in Belgium, where statues are also falling, and events have been very much intertwined with what has been happening in the U.S. #GEST535
In Week 9, we’ll look at the struggle over racism and the colonial legacy in the UK #GEST535
Week 10: Is there something to be learned from the Germans, about how to deal with the “memory of evil,” as Susan Neiman calls it? We’ll focus on her famous book, which will also serve as an entry into the German case. #GEST535
Week 11: If we want to assess whether or not there is something to be learned from the German “Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung,” the process of “working through the past,” we have to understand it first. In this week, we look at German debates before Reunification. #GEST535
In Week 12, we explore the debates over whether or not Germany is a “normal” country, and what that means for the way it handles its history, since Reunification: Collective Memory, the Culture of Remembrance, and “Vergangenheitspolitik” since 1989 #GEST535
And finally in Week 13, we examine the so-called “Catechism Debate” – a fierce fight over how to study, teach, and remember the Holocaust, the legacy of colonialism in German public culture, and the political conflict over national identity and multi-ethnic pluralism. #GEST535
As you can see, we have already started – Weeks 1-3 are in the books. I’ll post some reflections on the questions we discussed and our main observations and takeaways early next week. After that, there will be weekly updates as we make our way through the semester. #GEST535
Please keep your suggestions and observations coming – they are extremely helpful and so very much appreciated. Once again, I will not be able to answer all the questions or react to all the comments, but I am grateful to everyone who follows along. #GEST535
And, as always, here’s the original #GEST535 thread that contains all the general information on the course, the ideas and questions behind it, and links to all the different spin-off threads I’ll be posting throughout the semester:
In the MAGA imagination, America is simultaneously threatened by outsiders – invaders who are “poisoning the blood” of the nation, as Trump has put it – and by the “enemy within.” The core promise of Trumpism is to purge those inherently connected “threats.”
To the Trumpists, the “enemy within” - those radical “leftists” and “globalists” – are as acutely dangerous as the invaders from without.
In order to restore the nation to former glory, to Make America Great Again, it has as to be “purified” – the enemies have to be purged.
According to the Trumpists, only the providential leader can guide the nation to its re-birth and former glory – “Only I,” Trump loves to say. The rightwing base is all in on this, fiercely loyal to Trump personally, bound to him by a cult of personality.
What does the U.S. look like in five or ten years?
I was asked to reflect on this question, alongside other scholars. In a stable democracy, the range of plausible outcomes is narrow. But for America, it now includes complete democratic breakdown.
There should not have been any doubt about the intention of the Trumpists. They desire to erect a form of plebiscitary autocracy, constantly invoking the true “will of the people” while aggressively narrowing the boundaries of who gets to belong and whose rights are recognized.
At every turn, the response to the rise of Trumpism has been hampered by a lack of political imagination – a lingering sense that “It cannot happen here” (or not anymore), fueled by a deep-seated mythology of exceptionalism, progress gospel, and willful historical ignorance.
I wrote about why even critical observers underestimated the speed and scope of the Trumpist assault, why they overestimated democratic resilience – about what America is now, and what comes next?
New piece (link below)
I take stock of where we are after two months of Trumpist rule, explore that space between (no longer) democracy and full-scale autocracy where America exists now, reflect on what competitive authoritarianism means in theory and practice, and recalibrate my expectations.
I revisit “The Path to Authoritarianism,” a crucial essay Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way published in Foreign Affairs in early February. It captured their expectations at the outset of the Trumpist regime – a powerful warning that has nevertheless been overtaken by events already.
People who claim Zelensky was at fault yesterday and should have been more “diplomatic” or “respectful” are either deliberately propagating the Trumpist attack line – or they fundamentally misunderstand what the Trumpist project is and who is now in power in the United States.
There is this pervasive idea that Trump doesn’t really mean it, has no real position, and can therefore be steered and manipulated by tactical and diplomatic finesse; or maybe he’s just a businessman looking for a great deal. But that’s all irrelevant here.
Trump himself has been very consistent about his preference for foreign autocrats, especially Putin, and his (at best) disinterest and siding with Ukraine and (actually) explicit antagonism towards not only Zelensky, but Europe’s democracies more generally.
MAGA, the German Far Right, and the Transnational Assault on Democracy
A reflection on the German far right, Musk’s interference in the German election, and why the MAGA-AfD alliance isn’t nearly as irresistible as they want us to believe.
Some thoughts (and link below):
🧵
The results of the German election are in. On the one hand: About three quarters of the voting public stuck with democratic parties. On the other: The AfD got 20.8 percent of the vote - by far the strongest result the far right has achieved in Germany since 1945.
After it was founded in 2013, the AfD quickly evolved from what was initially mainstream-rightwing-to-reactionary territory into a far-right party that fully rejects liberal democracy and is undoubtedly the political home of Germany’s rightwing extremists.
I wrote a long profile of him: He’s one of the architects of Project 2025, an avowed Christian nationalist, and a radical ideologue of the “post-constitutional” Right
Vought is at war with pluralistic democracy (link below):
🧵
Vought will be singularly focused on bending the entire government machine to Trump’s will. He believes that any check on the power of Donald Trump, who Vought literally describes as a “gift of God,” is illegitimate. There is no line he doesn’t feel justified to cross.
Key to understanding Vought’s worldview is the idea that the constitutional order - and with it the “natural” order itself - has been destroyed: The revolution has already happened, “the Left” won. Therefore, conservatives err when they try to preserve what is no more.