Thread by @tzimmer_history

A question I’m often getting when I talk about reactionary white male grievance is: How much of this is “sincere,” how much is opportunism?

This is a good example why the answer is not either/or: It’s both, ideology and opportunism reinforcing each other in interesting ways.

https://twitter.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1492496308204097538

There’s no question that Sorbo understands the opportunity that is presented to him: There’s a whole rightwing propaganda infrastructure for guys like him - a standing invitation to gain a little bit of attention (and money) by leaning into their supposed victimization.

But when he looks in the mirror in the morning, does he go: “Goodness, I can’t believe they’re buying this BS - let’s go out there and tell some more nonsense stories!” I don’t think that’s the case. What’s on display here is a little more interesting than that.

Purely from a psychological standpoint, it’s unlikely for people to conceptualize their own behavior in such negative terms as pure opportunism / grift. While it’s cliché, it’s also plausible to assume that everyone is a hero in their own story.

More specifically, we all try to make sense of our actions, past and present, and tell stories - to ourselves and to the world - that make our life choices seem justified and consistent. Anyone who’s ever grappled with how to interpret autobiographical writing knows this.

In this case, the tale of the persecuted white man is attractive to Sorbo for obvious reasons: In this narrative, he didn’t fail professionally - he’s the victim of insidious forces; and by publicly talking about his story, he becomes a hero of conservative resistance.

“But does he truly believe this?” is the wrong question to ask because it quickly leads to a dead end. Analytically, it’s more fruitful to start from the assumption that ideology always circumscribes and defines the realm of opportunity, and to explore that underlying worldview.

Beyond the question of individual psychology, Sorbo also offers - admittedly in the crudest way possible - a window into the mindset that has defined modern conservatism since its inception: constant elite self-victimization.

One obvious example is William F. Buckley’s “Mission Statement” that he published in the National Review in November 1955. According to the godfather of modern conservatism, life in America was hard for conservatives - always “suppressed or mutilated” by the Libs.

This type of victimization complex has been at the heart of the conservative political project ever since - a siege mentality that serves to justify even the most radical, most cynical, most disingenuous behavior: What do you want us to do, the Libs are out to destroy us?!

In a way, Sorbo is the perfect avatar for this type of reactionary white male grievance because he’s claiming victimhood in the cultural realm. It is not just political power, but cultural dominance and affirmation conservatives seek - and it has eluded them for quite some time.

Sorbo’s pathetic nonsense would be funny if it weren’t also indicative of an underlying worldview that is fueling much of the reactionary counter-mobilization currently threatening democracy. White male elite grievance is a powerful force in American politics.

The white reactionary elite self-victimization provides a permission structure: Supporting despicably unethical politicians and blatantly authoritarian measures? In a world dominated by Libs who are out to silence and destroy upstanding conservatives, it’s what you have to do.