I guess when you’re convinced to be fighting a noble war to defend “real” (read: white Christian patriarchal) America against the insidious forces of leftism and “wokeism,” it all makes perfect sense!
It’s worth reflecting on why so few people on the Right consider these inconsistencies a serious problem, and why they’re evidently not a dealbreaker for most conservatives, neither intellectually nor politically. It’s all about what rightwingers consider the “Higher Truths.”
These Higher Truths to which conservatives subscribe: That “real Americans” are being victimized constantly, made to suffer under the yoke of crazy leftist politics; that woke Libs are out to destroy “real” America; that “We” are entitled to rule, and “They” must be stopped.
Anything that conforms to these Higher Truths - and paints “Us” (the in-group) as the sole proponents and heroic defenders of “real” (read: white Christian patriarchal) America while demonizing “Them” (the out-group) as an Un-American enemy - is enthusiastically embraced.
Judged by this rubric, the incoherence that @JeffSharlet rightfully criticizes is immediately resolved: By the standard of factual evidence and consistency, the various dogmas that are circulating on the Right don’t hold up; but they certainly do adhere to these “Higher Truths.”
The Canadian trucker convoy is the best example: How do the same people who declare protesters “outlaws” for the unspeakable crime of blocking a street, as codified in Republican “riot” laws, turn around and celebrate the “heroism” of blockading critical infrastructure?
Describing this as “hypocrisy” is entirely correct while at the same time missing the larger point: Calling for the law to treat different groups differently is hypocritical only if you believe in equality before the law. Conservatives very clearly don’t.
In this instance, the “rioters” are seen as a radical faction pursuing a fundamentally illegitimate (leftist, woke) cause of destroying America - while the truckers are supposedly representing the true will of the people, the Volk, i.e. the part of the population that counts.
It is this fundamental difference between “Us” and “Them” that is at the heart of all of the Right’s “Higher Truths”: a clear political, social, and cultural hierarchy that justifies and actually necessities differential and discriminatory treatment.
If we start from the premise that some groups are worthy of protection and privilege while others are dangerous and need to be kept in check, all of this is entirely consistent. That’s the conservative position.
We see the same logic play out all the time. Republicans railing against absentee voting / voting by mail while many of them have been doing it themselves - hypocritical, bad-faith cynicism? Sure. But the interesting question always is: How do these people justify their actions?
What do they tell themselves? Something like this: “The concern with absentee voting / voting by mail is that the *wrong people* get their votes counted, elevating an illegitimate political opponent; since I’m not one of those *wrong people*, this obviously doesn’t apply to me.”
The obvious hypocrisy is disregarded because the actions are fully consistent with conservatism’s higher principles: If it helps to entrench white Christian patriarchal rule, it can’t be wrong; if it undermines the power of traditional elites, it must be illegitimate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I mean, politics aside, this is quite bizarre. There is absolutely no evidence presented here. None. A purely ideological statement, masquerading as “journalism.”
I don’t disagree with this - it captures the pathologies of access journalism precisely. I do think, however, that we shouldn’t focus solely on the opportunistic nature, as ideology always defines the limits of opportunism. The person who wrote this piece can’t be fully agnostic.
This, exactly - and these centrists receive active support from journalists who are fully on board with the project of fighting back against the “radical,” “woke” forces that have supposedly advanced too far in the Democratic Party in particular and American life in general.
If anything, I think @sandylocks is being too generous here. It’s hard to see how what we’re witnessing now would have been possible without too many people on the center not just trying to duck away, but actively helping to legitimize the white reactionary counter-mobilization.
A concrete example for what @sandylocks rightfully calls media complicity in this short thread below - absolutely no journalistic justification for the WaPo to publish such bad-faith / illiterate nonsense.
“I defended the crusade against CRT, but I want nothing to do with these authoritarian education bills” is really not a credible position. It was never difficult to discern the white reactionary political project behind the anti-“CRT” moral panic, and what its end goal would be.
This may sound harsh, but I agree with @jasonintrator. Too many commentators thought their expertise on European fascism enabled them to weigh in on Trumpism, not realizing that they actually lacked an adequate understanding of the American (Far) Right, past and present.
One such case is Richard Evans, specifically his essay “Why Trump isn’t a fascist,” published a week after the January 6 attack on the Capitol. newstatesman.com/long-reads/202…
Richard Evans is one of the pre-eminent scholars of Nazism – and arguably one of the best-known historians in the world. I respect him greatly, especially his earlier work that focused on nineteenth-century German social history; the focus on Nazism actually came quite late.
You know what Yascha Mounk conveniently fails to mention? That he also called for an end to “hygiene theater” in May 2021 – that was before Delta, before Omicron. About 350,000 Americans have since died of Covid.
Something to keep in mind when assessing his credibility.
You’d think that including some form of acknowledgment of his previous calls to “end pandemic theater” might be in order? Something like “Mind you, I also proudly proclaimed the exact same thing many months ago, and that was clearly premature”? Some critical self-reflection?
It’s the complete lack of humility that I find astonishing. “I used my significant public platform once before to deride people who remained cautious, including pretty much all the actual experts - they were right, I was wrong, many people died, but hey, no hard feelings, right?”
Aside from the disastrous effects of their “bipartisanship or bust” politics, the fact that the “unity” crowd consistently relies on this kind of bizarrely distorted and utterly stupid version of the nation’s history should really give anyone with a shred of self-respect pause.
“Bipartisanship or bust” is how democracy dies. And actually, if that had been the maxim, America never would have gotten anywhere near democracy territory in the first place.
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.