Actually, a stark differentiation between those who are supposed to be bound by the rules (“Them”) and those who are not (“Us”) is very much at the heart of the conservative political project.
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.
Conservatives apply this higher principle to the law itself. Remember the Canadian trucker convoy? Conservatives declare protesters “outlaws” for the unspeakable crime of blocking a street - while celebrating 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. But conservatives explicitly 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.
Conservatives start from the premise that some groups are worthy of protection and deserve privilege - while others are dangerous and need to be kept in check. Once we acknowledge this as the highest principle, the conservative position is entirely consistent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thought on the “Cancel culture at UVA!” op-ed that the NYT should never have published:
It’s a great example of how, once it’s out in the world, a diagnosis like “cancel culture” quickly starts shaping, rather than just reflecting, reality and individual experiences.
Forget about the question of whether or not cancel culture is actually a thing: “cancel culture” – a specific diagnosis, a claim about the world widely perpetuated not just on the Right, but pretty much across the political spectrum – most definitely is having a massive impact.
In so many ways, what is described in the piece is “normal,” for lack of a better word: common experiences of adjusting and adapting to a new social / cultural / professional environment, being confronted with differing perspectives, figuring out how to navigate a wider world.
“Beißhemmung” – German, meaning: inhibition to bite/attack.
It’s a term that I believe captures much of the Democratic establishment’s reaction to the radicalizing Republican assault on democracy and civil rights quite well.
Republicans are engaged in an authoritarian assault on the political system, embrace extremists who fantasize about committing acts of violence against Democrats, and plan on finding a reason, any reason, to impeach Joe Biden as soon as they get the chance.
How can we explain that many Democrats act as if politics as usual is still an option and a return to “normalcy” imminent, even as Republicans could not be clearer about the fact that they consider Democrats the real “enemy” and Democratic governance fundamentally illegitimate?
Right-wing reactions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine range from openly siding with Putin to condemning him while agreeing with his critique of the weak, “woke” West. To the Right, the fight against multiracial pluralism overrides everything else.
The Right’s reactions have oscillated between blatant admiration for Putin and anti-Russian saber-rattling combined with a shrill critique of President Joe Biden. This goes well beyond Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson.
One week after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a personal reflection on the strangely disorienting experience of everyday normalcy in moments of world-historic importance - from the perspective of a citizen and a historian:
I want to be absolutely clear: Everything I say comes from an enormously lucky and privileged position of someone who is thousands of miles away from where the war is raging, who doesn’t have to worry about family or friends immediately affected by the invasion.
Obviously, how you’ve been experiencing these past few days will have been shaped, first and foremost, by how you are personally affected by what is going on in Ukraine. I am only trying to articulate a few thoughts from my individual perspective.
Always remember that we have to think beyond the “red states vs blue states” binary. There are so many people in those red states like Texas who strongly oppose the white reactionary regime that’s being installed there, and suffer greatly from these authoritarian policies.
It’s not realistic to expect people to just move away. I’m sure a lot of young people, especially, will do exactly that. But it leaves those behind who aren’t able to uproot their entire existence – often precisely the people who will suffer most from white reactionary politics.
And even if, somehow, everyone who prefers multiracial, pluralistic democracy were to get out of these “red” states, leaving behind only those conservative white Christians who desire to be surrounded by people who reflect their own image back at them, it’d still be a disaster.
I will add: The latest research on the history of modern U.S. conservatism and the American Right very much emphasizes the importance of domestic far-right extremist and fascistic traditions, and most serious historians agree that Trumpism needs to be situated in that context.
You haven’t been following these serious debates over Trumpism as fascism, are unaware of the state of the historical/political debate surrounding the American Right? Fine, no worries. But then why do you feel the need to opine publicly?
My own interpretation, by the way, is that the animating vision and ideology on the Right is best described as white Christian nationalism. Within that broader context, we need to acknowledge a domestic tradition of fascism / fascistic tendencies, and that’s where Trumpism falls.