This is a key point. Every time I mention how the Right is embracing the threat of political violence against supposedly “Un-American” enemies, I get a flurry of “Where were you when those woke barbarians destroyed our cities?! The violence is coming from the Left!!!” replies.
This has become dogma on the Right: That the country is facing an onslaught from a radically “Un-American,” extremist “Left” that is violently threatening to destroy everything the nation is supposed to stand for. And that the Democratic Party has been taken over by those forces.
That’s how they’re giving themselves permission to embrace whatever radical measures are deemed necessary to defeat this “Un-American” enemy. If the nation is under acute threat, nothing is beyond the pale to defend it. Democracy? The rule of law? Who cares!
This permission structure is really crucial. The Right doesn’t want to say: “We are the aggressors.” Building up this supposedly totalitarian threat from the “Left” allows them to justify their actions within the long-established framework of conservative self-victimization.
This is also why clinging to the idea that “They won’t go *that* far” is both futile and dangerous: They absolutely will, because they have convinced themselves that the other side has already gone *much further* and will stop at nothing.
But do they *truly* believe this, or are they just using these ideas opportunistically? The answer is: Yes. Or, to be more precise: It’s rarely just one or the other, as ideology defines the realm and limits of opportunism; and the specific mix ratio may vary from case to case.
Therefore, focusing too much on whether or not they *truly* believe is misleading and somewhat beside the point. It’s more important to acknowledge that this permission structure is established and that it works because it fits and confirms the Right’s overall worldview.
What are they giving themselves permission to do? That is the key question, politically as well as analytically, when dealing with the Right. And an honest assessment of that question should leave no doubt that American democracy is currently in an acutely perilous situation.
Addendum: @MatthewSitman and @SamAdlerBell provided the clearest articulation I’ve heard of this idea that we need to pay attention to what the Reactionary Right is giving itself permission to do, in this episode of the @KnowYrEnemyPod on the self-styled National Conservatives.
Here’s senator Rick Scott, preparing the ground for a large-scale purge of the “enemy within” - and soon, as it has supposedly already “seized control” of all areas of American life.
Here’s the former governor of Missouri (anyone remember why he resigned??) decrying “leftist tyranny.” And he is “willing to fight” - because that’s what you do if you’re living under a tyranny.
What are they giving themselves permission to do?
Oregon GOP edition: A Communist conspiracy that has taken over: the “godless Left” destroying the country - If that’s true, is there *any* action or measure that is not justified in the urgent fight to save America?
If it serves the larger struggle against “the Left,” there is no line conservatives, even the supposedly “respectable” ones at the National Review, aren’t willing to cross.
So advocating for a coup becomes “political activism.”
What are they giving themselves permission to do?
In a vacuum, this sounds really, really bad, doesn’t it? A frontal assault on the American political system! Do you see what’s going on? They’re out to get us! Shouldn’t we make sure we get them first?!!
It comes from the author of "American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party" – just in case you needed more evidence what this Claremont fellow was trying to tell us: The Democrats are a radical, “Un-American” enemy!
Also, please note how this perfectly encapsulates how the “cancel culture” discourse works: What’s actually going on is deliberately obscured by referring solely to procedure and ignoring all content. Like: “Cancelled for his opinion” instead of “Criticized for racist remarks.”
What are they giving themselves permission to do?
If this were true, would there be anything - very much including the use of political violence - *not* justified in the struggle against such demonic forces? What other than a call for a radical purge is this supposed to be?
Once you have convinced yourself you are fighting a noble war against a bunch of pedophiles seeking to destroy “real” America, there are no more lines you’re not justified to cross.
Once you have convinced yourself and/or your supporters that the other side is scheming to kill and replace you, any measure you take, regardless of how radical, is justified as an inevitable act of (preemptive) self-defense.
Why the Stakes in this Election Are So Enormously High
Democracy itself is on the ballot. If Trump wins, the extreme Right will be in a much better position than ever before to abolish it.
Some thoughts from my new piece - while we all nervously wait (link in bio):
🧵1/
Consider this my closing argument: As of right now, only one of the two major parties in the United States, the Democratic Party, for all its many flaws, is a (small-d) democratic party. The other one is firmly in the hands of a radicalizing ethno-nationalist movement. 2/
The fault lines in the struggle over whether or not the democratic experiment should be continued map exactly onto the fault lines of the struggle between the two parties. Democracy is now a partisan issue. Therefore, in every election, democracy itself is on the ballot. 3/
Combine the myth of American exceptionalism, (willful) historical ignorance, and a lack of political imagination and the result is a situation in which a lot of people refuse to take the Trumpist threat seriously.
There is a pervasive idea that in a country like the United States, with a supposedly centuries-long tradition of stable, consolidated democracy, authoritarianism simply has no realistic chance to succeed, that “We” have never experienced authoritarianism.
But the political system that was stable for most of U.S. history was a white man’s democracy, or racial caste democracy. There is absolutely nothing old or consolidated about *multiracial, pluralistic democracy* in America. It only started less than 60 years ago.
Many Americans struggle to accept that democracy is young, fragile, and could actually collapse – a lack of imagination that dangerously blunts the response to the Trumpist Right.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about the mix of a deep-seated mythology of American exceptionalism, progress gospel, lack of political understanding, and (willful) historical ignorance that has created a situation in which a lot of people simple refuse to take the Trumpist threat seriously. 2/
There is a lot of evidence that this election may be decided by a sizable group of people who strongly dislike Trump and his plans, but simply cannot imagine he would actually dare / manage to implement any of his promises and therefore aren’t mobilizing to vote. 3/
This warning was not coming from the Left. Although he rejects the label, Kagan is probably best described as a neocon. He’s an influential Never Trump Ex-Republican. And he believed that unless we changed course, America was on a trajectory towards a Trump dictatorship.
Nothing is ever inevitable. But what Kagan got right is that every political analysis needs to start from the recognition that there’s an eminently plausible and fairly straightforward path from where we are to autocratic rule. That’s even more obvious now than it was a year ago.
Crucial piece by @Mike_Podhorzer on how polls are obscuring the extremism of Trump’s plans.
A related thought: Since the mainstream discourse stipulates that extremism must be “fringe” in America, anything that has broad support is reflexively sanitized as *not* extremism.
This apologist sleight of hand is often deployed to provide cover for extreme forces within the GOP: If extremism is not defined by its ideological/political substance, but as “something fringe,” then the minute it becomes GOP mainstream, it ceases to be regarded as extremism.
Just like that, not only do extremist ideas and policies get automatically legitimized - by definition, the Republican Party, regardless of how substantively extreme, also gets treated as “normal” simply because it ain’t fringe, because it’s supported by almost half the country.
Trumpism is what a specifically American, twenty-first century version of fascism looks like. And in November, fascism is on the ballot.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
Donald Trump’s closing pitch to the American people is rage, intimidation, and vengeful violence. He is threatening – or promising, if you ask his supporters – fascism. No more plausible deniability for anyone who refuses to see the threat. 2/
Mere weeks before the election, I revisit the Fascism Debate and discuss where we stand after Trump has, even by his own standards, gone on a rampage recently. If anyone thought more evidence was needed before we could call it fascist, the Trumpists have certainly provided it. 3/