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.
Harris’ arc since 2020 points to how much of a reactionary retrenchment we have experienced, and how much social, racial, and gender progress have come to be viewed as “woke” radicalism that has supposedly gone too far - a position shared by elites across party lines. 2/
Harris was seen as the perfect VP in the summer of 2020: A woman of color, highly qualified and accomplished, who rose to elite status through her abilities and determination, in a party that wanted to tell the world: Yes, we are indeed the champions of multiracial pluralism. 3/
Harris emerged as VP in the summer of 2020 when it seemed the country might finally deal with its defining demons. But as the reactionary counter-mobilization triumphed, she was sidelined. Until now.
My new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about the meaning of Kamala Harris in this particular moment in American history: Her story as VP reflects the post-George Floyd racial reckoning that never came as well as the racial and social retrenchment since 2020. 2/
The Right will go all in on racist and sexist attacks against the Black woman that now stands between them and a return to power. Already in 2020, the Right tried a little birtherism against Harris - unsurprising from a movement that wants to abolish birthright citizenship. 3/
There has been a ton of attention lately for Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led planning operation for a more efficient, more ruthless rightwing regime - peaking in reaction to Trump pretending he doesn’t know anything about it, which is an obvious, brazen lie. 2/
Public attention is necessary: In a very real sense, these plans are on the ballot in November. However, it’s also turned “Project 2025” into a bit of a catchall term - when we should be precise about what it tells us about Trump’s role and about the Right more broadly. 3/
Trump is not the mastermind behind Project 2025. It’s worse: The rightwing establishment has radicalized to the point where their plans are entirely in line with his vengeful desires.
My new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about the relationship between Trump and Project 2025, between the inner circle of MAGA world on the one hand and the institutional and intellectual elites of American conservatism on the other: A radicalizing alliance against democratic pluralism. 2/
Donald Trump lied when he declared he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and knew no one involved in the operation. Not exactly shocking, I know. But there is something more interesting and revealing going on here than just habitual lying. 3/
I took a deep dive into the “Promise to America” Heritage president Kevin Roberts has offered in his foreword to the "Project 2025" report: It perfectly captures the siege mentality, self-victimization, and grievance-driven lust for revenge that are fueling the Right's plans. 2/
Kevin Roberts is not a moderate imposter who pretends to be hardcore so that he can blend in with the MAGAs because that is the direction the wind is blowing. He is a reactionary Catholic and part of the Religious Right – a true believer in the reactionary political project. 3/
An argument I’m trying to make here is that a second Trump term would be worse not only because the radical Right would be better prepared, but also because they would be operating under much more favorable circumstances.
With a much more extreme Supreme Court, for instance.
Back in power, the radical Right could count on a reactionary supermajority on the Supreme Court - something they didn’t have during Trump’s first term.
Today’s disastrous, truly extreme immunity ruling should be an urgent reminder of what an absolute game-changer that is.
Additionally, this would not be the same Right that came to power in 2017. That starts with Trump himself. The idea that he has always been the same, just Trump being Trump, is massively misleading and obscures the rather drastic radicalization of the Right’s undisputed leader.