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.
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.
Russell Vought will be a key figure in the regime, as competent as he is radical. He’s one of the architects of Project 2025, an avowed Christian nationalist, an ideologue of the “post-constitutional” Right.
Key to 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 categorically err when they try to preserve what is no more.
Power now lies with a “permanent ruling class” of leftist elites who control all major institutions of life and especially the “woke and weaponized” agencies of the state. In order to defeat them, conservatives must become “radical constitutionalists” - and take radical action.