1. The current Thermidorian Reaction we're witnessing (establishment backlash against trans rights, #metoo, BLM) echoes a forgotten moment in history: the widespread elite freak-out over 2nd wave feminism and gay rights in 1969-1973, after Stonewall ignited new militancy.
2. In conventional historical memory, 1960s/1970s backlash is remembered as a few Cold War liberals turning right over Black Power, anti-war movement, New Left. True enough but broader backlash went beyond this faction & opposition to feminism & gay rights was crucial part.
3. Feminism & gay rights, along with the Black freedom movement, challenged fundamental hierarchies that made many people, not just conservatives or Cold War liberals, uncomfortable: in the 1969-1973 moment, it included many mainstream liberals, left-liberals & leftists.
4. Important to remember that many older successful women (precisely because they had risen to the top under the older patriarchy) were uneasy with 2nd wave feminism: see writing of Didion, Diane Trilling, Hardwick, Mary McCarthy in that era (some changed later).
5. And the reaction to feminism (and occasionally gay rights) evident in writers of left who did not become neo-conservatives: Mailer, Irving Howe. Major anti-gay piece of era was written by Joseph Epstein, then a Dissent social democrat, in Harper's, a centrist magazine.
6. Irving Howe is important bellwether of 1969-1973 reaction: socialist editor of Dissent, in that era in Harper's & Commentary he publishes attacks on feminism, Kate Millet, Susan Sontag, Philip Roth & Ismael Reed (all emblems of threatening new social values).
7. The interesting thing about Howe is that he didn't end up as a neo-con. Once the New Left receded (essentially with the winding down of Vietnam War & Nixon's resignation) he returned to being a normal social democrat & even came to acknowledge he over-reacted to 1960s.
8. I think the current reactionary moment will follow the same trajectory as 1969-1973: there are many liberals/leftists in reaction, some will be Podhoretzes & move permanently to the right, some will be Irving Howes & return left once controversies die down.
9. Interesting bit of cultural continuity is that the same institutions that fostered the 1969-1973 freakout against feminism/gay rights (New York Times, Harper's, Atlantic, Ivy League schools) are main venues for current reaction.
10. It is notable that the 1969-1973 social reactionary moment has largely been dropped down the memory hole (you can get a glimpse of it in the great documentary Town Bloody Hall). The cultural success of the liberal versions of feminism & gay rights has made it embarrassing.
11. An interesting example of 1969-1973 reaction is Murray Rothbard. He was left-leaning libertarian in 1960s, allied with Maoist faction in Peace & Freedom Party, very pro-Black Power, collaborator with New Left students of William Appleman Williams. Then shifted right in 1970
12. Post-1970 Rothbard abandoned New Left Alliance, turned to Libertarian Party (and, for a period, Koch Bros.) His shift never adequately explained by Rothbard or his acolytes. Best explanation is from @zeithistoriker, who notes Rothbard's anti-feminism
13. Rothbard (who had a very old-fashioned academic marriage to a Southern belle, who had no professional aspirations & helped, uncredited, with his research) reacted badly to 2nd wave feminism. He turned to ideas of biological essentialism (& praised Howe's anti-feminism).
14. Politically Rothbard, Midge Decter, Irving Howe, Normal Mailer very different (respectively: libertarian, neo-con, socialist, "left conservative"). Yet in 1969-1973 they were united in anti-feminism & in some cases supported or relied on each other. A forgotten moment.
15. To be clear I don't want to suggest that the 1969-1973 elite freak-out had no effect. Was key to formation of neo-conservatism (an important faction) & slowed down social progress. More subtly, blunted the most radical voices of that moment.
16. If it was liberal feminism (rather than socialist feminism) & liberal version of gay rights (rather than more radical version) that triumphed in 1970s, surely reaction of 1969-1973 played a part. That's part of legacy.
17. Returning to the current moment: current reactants to social change (Yglesias, Signal, Greenwald, etc) are likely to divide along Decter/Howe lines: some moving permanently to right, some making peace as social movements become assimilated into establishment norms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1, Riffing a bit on Ganz's fine piece & thread, I'd argue that you can't understand the current post-liberal right without understanding its debt to the so-called "conservative revolution" in 1920 Germany.
2. The "conservative revolution" emerged in the wake of the 1918 defeat. It consisted of figures on the right who rejected liberalism of Weimar Republic. Symptomatic names being Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck & Heidegger.
3. The members of the "conservative revolution" have a kind of tricky relationship with Nazism. Some of them, most infamously Schmitt, helped pave path for Nazi victory and/or were publicly aligned with Nazis. But they also had private grumbles & later claimed anti-Nazi status.
1. In the wake of Trumpism, there's been intellectual genealogies trying to trace right back to paleo-conservatism, integralism & anarcho-capitalism. Matthew Rose's A World After Liberalism is the best book along this line & deserves more attention. yalebooks.yale.edu/book/978030026…
2. Rose's book has much greater scope than most books on the right, starting with so-called "conservative revolution" in Germany of 1920s (Spengler & other para-fascists), moving to Julius Evola, Francis Parker Yockey, Alain de Benoist & Samuel T. Francis
3. Spengler, Evola, Yockey, de Benoist & Francis might seem (even to people who know who these mostly obscure figures are) but Rose's book makes a convincing case that they constitute a coherent tradition who what might be called post-Christian white identitarianism.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
This is a good way to think about it but more broadly the entire Trump administration was 1) him trying to do criminal things 2) people around him trying to stop him & in the process usurping power. This very bad situation was created by fact GOP wouldn't impeach/remove.
The great complex reality, which no one is willing to face is that GOP's unwillingness to do constitutionally necessary remedy (either 25th or impeachment/removal) meant staff & military ("deep state") worked around Trump in ways that usurped normal authority. That's bad.
Leaving aside Jan. 6, Trump's 4 years in office were a roiling constitutional crisis in ways that I don't think anyone is willing to confront. Maybe because the general Washington attitude is that so long as Trump doesn't return to office, this stuff won't happen again.
1. In terms of where USA is heading, important to understand that Dem establishment is spending millions in multiple races to elevate the most batshit insane Republicans in hope they'll win nomination.
2. The centrist Dem policy of elevating GOP extremists is usually defended along Machiavellians line: hey, it's cynical but it works. One problem is that it doesn't always work i.e. 2015/2016 Clinton move to elevate Trump.
3. More to the pint, the policy is not just Machiavellian but associated with a particular type of politics. Early advocate was Dick Morris who as Bill Clinton's bagman urged this as part of triangulation: by elevating hard right, Clinton would be moderator unity candidate.
I'm trying to cut back on dunking on Yglesias, but compare this glib utterly uniformed tweet with the excellent discussion of the right's long term court strategy on recent @KnowYrEnemyPod & @fivefourpod podcasts (the first of which is here: stitcher.com/show/know-your…
I'm blocked so could someone tell Mr. Yglesias that there are people known as "scholars" who write things called "books and articles." If you consult those, you will find overwhelming documentation of a long term right-wing strategy on the courts that led to this moment.
It's true that the right's long-term strategy met roadblocks and setbacks along the way -- the Bork fiasco, the fact in early stages they didn't vet judges perfectly so got Kennedy & Souter -- but on the whole it's been a very determined 50 year long march which paid off.