This perfectly captures the state of the political discourse on the Right.
It’s a massive problem that much of the established media will keep pretending these are serious people because they feel the need to uphold the myth that there are two roughly equivalent sides/parties.
Since mainstream journalism is predicated on the idea that politics is a game between two teams that are essentially the same and journalists aspire to “neutrality,” which they define as equidistance from either side, whatever comes from the GOP has to be elevated to credibility.
Stating clearly what the Republican Party has become would run counter to mainstream journalism’s eternal quest for “neutrality” and “balanced” coverage, its overwhelming desire to signal “nonpartisanship.” And so the GOP continues to be covered as if it were a “normal” party.
Occasionally, something so terrible happens that it has enough of an impact to break through this “both sides” charade of constant normalization. Uvalde was such an event. And so we’re getting editorials telling us clearly what the problem is: The radicalization of the Right.
But it never lasts. We’ll be back to pretending the GOP is a “normal” party soon. It’s also weirdly inconsequential for other areas of public policy: Republicans can thoroughly debase themselves on gun violence - and will still be treated as serious voices on taxes, welfare, etc.
And so journalists, forcing themselves to act as if they were completely oblivious to who they are interviewing, will keep approaching them with a microphone to spout their vile nonsense into, as if they hadn’t proven a million times they weren’t serious people.
It’s one of the most bizarre features of the American political discourse that it demands we pretend these are serious suggestions, coming from serious political actors, instead of acknowledging that one side, one party, is entirely uninterested in protecting American lives.
In a healthy political culture, anyone trafficking in such deranged nonsense would be shunned and ostracized, the party that elevates them would have to pay a hefty political price.
In the U.S., that’s evidently not the case. And until that changes, nothing changes.
Addendum: In case anyone needed more evidence for the type of mainstream media complicity I am criticizing here, the NYT has this to offer.
This type of coverage is actively harmful and serves no journalistic purpose beyond upholding the “neutrality” dogma. It needs to stop.
The constant normalization of Republican radicalism via supposedly “balanced” journalism is usually most apparent in opinion pieces that explicitly employ a “both sides” framing – but in some ways, it’s the supposedly “neutral” reporting that does more harm. Here’s an example:
It starts with the headline that defines the problem as “gridlock” in Congress – a term that appears several times in the piece. And in a narrow sense, that’s factually correct. But it’s a framing that privileges those who simply sabotage over those who want solutions.
The “dysfunction” trope is, in almost all cases, willfully obtuse and entirely misleading. Is there no level of deliberate sabotage from Republicans that political journalists won’t immediately press into the all-familiar “Dysfunction in Washington” framework?
There’s a long bipartisan tradition of blaming “Washington,” of course. But actively sabotaging government and then selling the ensuing dysfunction as proof that government doesn’t work - that’s really been a Republican specialty for decades, with disastrous consequences.
Next up, we get the usual dose of stenography-masquerading-as-journalism: Yes, it’s true, Republicans want to frame it all as a mental health issue and blame Democrats for “politicizing” the situation – but do we need the NYT to present this without any kind of disclaimer?
What’s the least controversial thing one can do in American politics? Blame “polarization”: It’s the concept you use if you want to lament major problems in American politics but can’t bring yourself to openly address the fact that the actual issue really is a radicalizing Right.
This one is particularly bad: Why sanitize the utterly deranged, entirely-detached-from-empirical-reality nonsense that Republicans have been offering by presenting it as a call to improve “school security and mental health”?
“There remain serious questions,” the article reminds us – which makes it sound like someone offered a new, yet to be tested, maybe potentially risky but also kind of innovative approach that just hasn’t been fully vetted yet… Is that what Republicans have been doing?
The article finally links the gun debate to the broader political conflict. Unfortunately, we’re being treated to some hardcore both sides-ing. Yes, Republican states have been up to some pretty extreme stuff – but did you know that Democrats have decided “to respond in kind”?
Once again, on a narrowly factual level, it is not incorrect to say that California wants to use the questionable (that’s a euphemism) legal mechanism pioneered by Texas to abolish abortion to enforce its existing gun laws. But think about what’s implied here by this framing.
What is strongly implied here – fully in line with the overall “polarization” framework – is that both sides are engaged in an equally bad, ever-radicalizing, dangerously escalating project to force their radical views and policies onto America.
That’s only plausible, however, if you think that Texas (abolishing the right to abortion, bodily autonomy, and privacy) and California (enforcing existing gun laws to keep *already banned* guns off the street) are somehow pursuing projects that are morally and politically equal.
One state, Texas, is pursuing a policy uniquely extreme in the “developed” world – while the other, California, is enforcing gun laws that are fully in line with what is consensus everywhere outside the United States of America. That seems like relevant context, perhaps?
I am not singling out this article because it is so extraordinarily bad – but because it’s typical of what is presented as “balanced” coverage every day. It’s the result of journalists following an ethos of “neutrality,” which they define as keeping equidistance from either side.
The “neutrality” dogma and the overwhelming desire to signal “nonpartisanship” have journalists gravitate towards narratives and frameworks that blame “division,” “polarization,” lack of “unity” – while never adequately and precisely assessing the problem.
The resulting coverage constantly privileges the radicalizing rightwing forces in American life. The cumulative effect of this kind of journalism is disastrous. So many Americans remain oblivious to the threat of Republican radicalization – and this is a big reason why.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.