We must resist the politics of weaponized nostalgia.
 
The reactionary counter-mobilization against multiracial, pluralistic democracy is helped by a widespread nostalgia for a “golden age” in recent American history that never actually existed.
 
Some thoughts: 1/
“Make America Great Again” is the latest manifestation of a political project that seeks to return the country to a supposedly better state in the past. It’s also so obviously defined by white nationalist ideology that only rightwingers are ready to proudly don MAGA hats. 2/
However, many “moderate” conservatives and people on the Center are willing to make common cause with the Right – or at the very least they are content to stand by as the reactionary counter-mobilization acutely threatens democracy. 3/
So, why do self-proclaimed moderates ultimately decide to legitimize and support the rightwing political project, even though many of them may be uneasy about Trumpian extremism and the energies and anxieties that are fueling its rise? 4/
Part of the answer lies in the sense of nostalgia that is prevalent on the Center as well as deep into the liberal camp. In a weaponized form it provides an important vehicle to transport reactionary ideas into the mainstream and make the reactionary project more palatable. 5/
Weaponized nostalgia is an extremely potent tool in the hands of reactionaries, as it builds on and amplifies widespread anxieties regarding the fundamental social and cultural changes America has been undergoing over the past few decades. 6/
Two of the central, widely accepted diagnoses of our time are grounded in a pervasive sense of nostalgia: the narrative of “polarization” as the root of all evil that plagues America and the idea that “cancel culture” constitutes a national emergency. 7/
At the core of both the “polarization” and the “cancel culture” narrative is the idea that it used to be better, that America is on a dangerous path away from a golden era in the recent past. Both benefit from the kind of political nostalgia which they, in turn, perpetuate. 8/
Let’s look at polarization first. I’ve written many times about why, as an overall diagnosis, the “polarization” narrative distorts the political realities and obscures rather than illuminates what is the key challenge: A radicalization of the Right. 9/
And beyond offering a misleading interpretation of the present, the “polarization” narrative is problematic because it usually comes with a hefty dose of “golden age” nostalgia for a long-lost “consensus,” and also prescribes consensual politics as the solution. 10/
Too often, the polarization story tends to create a narrative of the American polity in decline - suggesting that the status quo ante against which the polarized decades since the 1970s are measured was one of unity and order. 11/
But political “consensus” was usually based on a cross-partisan agreement to leave a discriminatory social order intact and deny marginalized groups equal representation and civil rights. Those “golden eras” were periods of white male elite consensus. 12/
The frequently invoked “consensus” of the post-World War II era, for instance, was depending on both major parties agreeing that white patriarchal rule would remain largely untouched. By the 1960s, however, that white elite consensus had started to fracture. 13/
The parties began to split over the question of whether or not the country should become a multiracial, pluralistic democracy - a system in which an individual’s status would not be determined largely by race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. 14/
Not coincidentally, “polarization” started when one party broke with the white elite consensus and supported the civil rights legislation of the 60s. In many ways, “polarization” is the price U.S. society has had to pay for real progress towards multiracial pluralism. 15/
There is absolutely no need for polarization-induced “consensus” nostalgia. But that’s exactly what characterizes much of the broader polarization discourse. And it primes people to accept a politics focused on turning the clock back to a supposedly better past. 16/
A similar dynamic characterizes much of the “cancel culture” discourse and lends legitimacy to the diagnosis that America is experiencing a “free speech crisis” – an idea the Right has successfully weaponized in service of a reactionary political project. 17/
That type of “free speech” nostalgia was on full display in the infamous NYT editorial from mid-March. It presented a narrative of decline: “something has been lost” – but when was that golden age of free speech when all Americans were free to speak their minds at all times? 18/
Unless we are talking about white Christian men only, it makes absolutely no sense to construct a version of U.S. history in which the past was characterized by free speech for all Americans, in which the very recent past has been marked by a loss of free speech. 19/
“Free speech” nostalgia often comes with supposedly objective polling numbers as “proof,” especially in moderate / centrist circles – with the most bizarre example being the idea that Americans are less free to speak their minds today than in the 1950s (the 1950s!). 20/
If you think your numbers tell you that people in 1950s-Red Scare-Segregated-Patriarchy America enjoyed more “free speech” than today, you need to think a little harder – and you should consider picking up a history book, perhaps. 21/
Combine the ideas of “polarization” and “cancel culture” into a myth of a past golden age of unity and limitless free speech and you get the kind of easy-to-weaponize nostalgia that provides fertile ground for anyone who promises to restore a more stable equilibrium. 22/
How far should the clock be turned back? The current state-level Republican assault on the post-1960s civil rights regime suggests that the Right is all in on taking the country back to the kind of white Christian patriarchal rule of the 1950s. 23/
That’s clearly a minoritarian project. But there is a whole armada of self-proclaimed moderates and (reactionary) centrists who do agree that someone needs to stand up to the radically “woke” Left that is undermining everyone and everything. Because things have gone too far! 24/
Once you’ve convinced yourself that the country is coming apart, you might decide it’s ultimately preferable to lend your support to those who promise to turn the clock back rather than to the “radical Left” – even if it means you’ll have to hold your nose while doing so. 25/
Nostalgia is a powerful part of the human condition. It can easily become a filter through which every political, social, and cultural information is absorbed. And if a political movement offers to bring back what has supposedly been lost, that can be hard to resist. 26/
But resist it we must. So, what is the counter to the politics of weaponized nostalgia? Let’s start with a more accurate understanding of American history, one that doesn’t idolize consensus and stability, but acknowledges that they often stifled racial and social progress. 27/
In U.S. history, the price for extending democracy has always been political instability - or: division, polarization - because demands for equality and social justice are inherently destabilizing to an order based on traditional white Christian patriarchal authority. 28/
American democracy was stable whenever and as long as it didn’t interfere with a political, social, and cultural order in which white Christians – and white Christian men, in particular – got to be on top and got to define what did and what did not count as “real America.” 29/
Conversely, moments of racial and social progress – or even just perceived progress – have always been conflictual, have always led to a reactionary counter-mobilization that threatened to abolish democracy altogether rather than accepting multiracial pluralism. 30/
Similarly, there was no talk of a “free speech crisis” as long as those in power got to define the boundaries of what was / wasn’t acceptable speech – before traditionally marginalized groups gained enough influence and the technological means to make their claims heard. 31/
What rightwingers and reactionary centrists deride as a “free speech crisis” is better understood as a much-needed conversation about changing speech norms – one that the Right wants to delegitimize by applying the “cancel culture” label. 32/
This process of re-negotiating the boundaries of acceptable speech is conflictual and can be messy. But it’s necessary because traditionally marginalized groups are finally part of that conversation. As such, it constitutes not decline, crisis, or carnage - but progress. 33/
Nostalgia is a common reaction to change. And weaponized nostalgia is a powerful tool of reactionary politics. It currently constitutes a key threat to democracy. Let’s not fall for it. Absolutely no need to mythologize past eras of stable white Christian patriarchal rule. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Zimmer

Thomas Zimmer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tzimmer_history

Apr 20
Still exhausted from a difficult Covid winter with two little unvaccinated kids, I don’t even have the strength right now to be furious with the people cheering because they get to be irresponsibly selfish on the plane. But I am so devastatingly frustrated. And I won’t forget.
None of this is surprising, of course. We’ve all been witnessing it for over two years. But the complete lack of solidarity, large segments of the population raging against the idea that they should be inconvenienced in the slightest - it all remains stunning.
I compartmentalize and try not to think about it too much. I couldn’t function otherwise, with such people around me. But it remains a devastating indictment not just of American politics and political culture, but of the society in which we live more generally. And that hurts.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 18
On Friday, I criticized the Washington Post editorial board for perpetuating the “cancel culture” moral panic.

I’d like to add a few thoughts on how the WaPo has since dealt with a “cancellation” that wasn’t and its failure to take responsibility for its own complicity.
To recap: In late March, The WaPo editorial board issued an urgent warning that an insidious campaign to “cancel” Mike Pence was underway at UVA – and then it turned out that Pence just gave his speech on campus and absolutely no silencing or canceling happened.
The day before the event, the WaPo ran a long story about how Pence’s upcoming speech had “reignited a debate over free speech,” how the editorial in the student newspaper Cavalier Daily “sparked a backlash” for declaring Pence wasn’t welcome.
Read 16 tweets
Apr 15
Remember when the Washington Post Editorial Board issued an urgent warning two weeks ago that an insidious campaign to “cancel” Mike Pence was underway at UVA?
 
Well, this week, Pence finally gave his speech – and absolutely no “cancelling” happened.
 
Some thoughts: 1/ Image
On Tuesday, Mike Pence gave a speech at UVA on “How to Save America from the Woke Left” – because that is evidently the only topic the Right really cares about. As the WaPo notes, “the event had touched off a national debate over ‘cancel culture’.” 2/ ImageImage
It’s a really interesting way to phrase this, because it was actually the WaPo editorial board that contributed significantly to making this a national debate by warning us about dangerous efforts to “silence and cancel” Mike Pence at UVA. 3/ Image
Read 31 tweets
Apr 15
The Right thinks teaching law students about structural, systemic forms of racism that produce racially discriminatory outcomes even though the law is ostensibly race-neutral is evil.

But teaching them this raging pile of racism and white supremacist resentment? Totally fine.
I just think that tells us a lot about the American Right.

Wax isn’t just some random professor. She’s among the group of rightwing intellectuals who have launched “national conservatism” as an openly nationalist alternative to the established Right. vox.com/policy-and-pol…
At the inaugural National Conservatism Conference in the summer of 2019, Wax outlined her nationalist immigration policy vision, arguing that “our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”nationalconservatism.org/natcon-dc-2019…
Read 6 tweets
Apr 14
A similar dynamic: Mainstream media institutions going to bizarre lengths to prove how “neutral” they are, failing to understand that the decades-long rightwing campaign against the media’s “liberal” bias was never fueled by a sincere desire for “balance.”
The desperately-desired conservative approval is never coming, regardless of how many times rightwing talking points are laundered in opinion pieces by columnists who were hired to prove “viewpoint diversity” - because that’s simply not what the Right is really after.
This is the perfect example of mainstream media institutions bending over backwards: This obviously doesn’t meet minimum standards of intellectual honesty, factual accuracy, or analytical consistency. It’s provided a platform anyway. Why? Because “See how not liberal we are?!?” Image
Read 4 tweets
Apr 14
The way the media covers McConnell is indicative of a larger pathology of the political discourse in general and political journalism in particular: reactionary ideology is downplayed, what we get is a sanitized version in which everything is just strategy and opportunism.
But approaching politics as an ideology-free game of chess is not only analytically inadequate. It also benefits shameless cynics like Mitch McConnell: Better to be seen as a devious, nihilistic genius than as a reactionary white nationalist.
It’s an approach that perpetuates the idea that none of the people on the Right are true believers, committed to a reactionary ideological vision. They’re all just playing the game, doing what’s best for them / their team - and so who can really blame them, right?
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(