Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Aug 7, 2022 25 tweets 6 min read Read on X
I think I do. Can I give it a shot?

It has to do with the purpose of government.

For some people (like us) purpose of government is to help people. We think fairness is possible, and that the government's job is to try to create fairness.

Others have a different worldview.

1/
Hierarchy people, in contrast, think there’s a natural order: Some people belong on top. Others are at the bottom.

They think that people with money and power have that money and power because they deserve it.

2/
An example: The white supremacy theories that informed the Confederacy.

Hierarchy people don’t believe equality is possible because they don’t think people are equal.

They think the purpose of government is to allocate power and maintain the hierarchy.

3/
When a government helps people, they think the government is taking away from the “makers” and giving to the undeserving.

When people lower than them on the hierarchy demand equality, they think those people want to “replace” them.

4/
Nineteenth-century America was a strict hierarchy (specifically, a patriarchy) with white men at the top and Black women at the bottom.

White women were kept out of the professions which kept them dependent on men, which gave men control over them.

5/
Nineteenth-century laws reinforced the hierarchy.

For example, rape laws were designed to protect (white) men from false accusations. They weren't designed to protect women from attack. Rapes were evaluated based on where the victim and attacker were on the hierarchy.

6/
I won't go into the details of rape laws, but you get the idea. I'll add, though, that the laws were based on the idea that men were natural aggressors and the woman's job was to guard the good.

Then along came the Civil Rights and women's rights movements . . .

7/
. . . and the patriarchy was smashed.

We're riding the backlash.

The current GOP wants to go back to the good old days of the patriarchy.

That's why they want to outlaw abortion, make medicine expensive, and dismantle the regulatory agencies created by the New Deal.

8/
If you take a long view of history and consider how long we lived in a patriarchy (from the before start of the nation until the past few decades and we're still not out of it yet) you can see how rapid the changes have been.

The rapid changes have unsettled some people.

9/
They really think the liberals are destroying everything good about America.

(And now I've written my blog post for next weekend so what will I do with my spare time this week?)

10/
Precisely: Lots of poor Whites supported the confederacy, which put power into the hands of a very few men (not them).

But think of it: They had no trouble getting a woman.

Women literally couldn't say no because they had no options. . .

11/

. . . and if a woman got raped, it was seen as her fault. Even after the Civil War, the rape of a Black woman wasn't seen as a crime.

Men could grab what they wanted and women had no choice but to get married.

12/
Someone just said, "My GOP friends don't think this way."

@TimothyDSnyder offers an explanation for how people come to support hierarchal leaders.

When fairness leaders are in power, they try to create fairness . . .

13/
. . . they do things like try to make sure everyone has healthcare and inexpensive medications.

OK, so if leaders don’t govern in the usual sense (devising policy to better the lives of the citizens) what do they do all day?

14/
They create crisis and spectacle!

GOP members have said that if they come to power, they will impeach Biden and Garland. (Spectacle)

They identify enemies and promise to “neutralize” the enemies. The play on people's fears.

15/
So glad you asked! See my list of things to do. (Link in the next tweet).


Think of history as a push and pull. The liberals and progressives push us forward. The reactionaries and regressives push us backward.

16/
Hierarchy people have always been with us. They were in favor of slavery and racial segregation and women in the home.

When we create fairness and equality, they try to roll it back.

It's constant work.
terikanefield.com/things-to-do/
17/
One bit of advice not on my to-do list: Hold on to your ideals.

The hierarchal worldview is deeply cynical.
The fairness view is idealistic.

We can never have perfect fairness, so fairness people run the danger of becoming cynical. Positive change requires ideals.

18/
So don't get cynical.

Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream.

He probably had a few nightmares as well, but it was his dreams that inspired people to work for a better country.

19/
Totally agree. Idealism has to be rooted in reality.

The belief that change can happen all at once is completely unrealistic and leads to cynicism.

History teaches us that change happens slowly and with great effort because there is always pushback.

20/
I hate to add to this already long thread, but someone responded on Facebook with this ⤵️and it raises an interesting point.

The founders rejected monarchy and created a rule of law society that rejected autocracy but nonetheless embraced a hierarchy. . .

21/ Image
The founders allowed slavery (although not all were in favor of it; Hamilton understood that without that compromise, there would have been no union.)

White women couldn't vote. "We the people" really meant white, well-educated mostly land-owning men.

22/
They created a rule of law government. The laws favored a certain group of people, which is different from a monarchy (see Max Weber's sources of authority for government.)

Our history has been about other groups trying to gain admission to the category of "people."

23/
Adding this here:
Hierarchy people see law enforcement as a way to allocate and maintain their own power.

They use law enforcement in that way so they (cynically) assume everyone does.

Fairness people see law enforcement as a way to create justice.

24/
Because hierarchy people don't believe in fairness or equality, they don't believe law enforcement has a just use.

That's why the Republican slogan of "law and order" didn't really mean law and order. It meant "put Black men in jail."

25/

• • •

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

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield 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 @Teri_Kanefield

Apr 29
Everyone will have a different opinion of the strength of the Manhattan criminal case against Trump.

I am offering no opinions on the strength or who will prevail.

I am saying that people are working too hard to explain the case and figure out the legal theory.

1/
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."

2/

terikanefield.com/wheres-the-bee…
The legal theory of the case should be clear.

This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.

Does this mean the prosecution will lose? No.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Mar 11
Finished. (Whew)

As promised, all about Legal pundits and the Outrage Industry, with a few cherished conspiracy theories carefully debunked.

Click here to start:

For years, I was perplexed by what I saw on Twitter. . .

1/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
It seemed to me that the dynamics of social media were making people more authoritarian.

Then I started reading experts in political communication and it all started making sense.


2/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
I wrote parts 1 - 5 in November. I thought I was finished, but I wasn't.

There were still things I didn't understand.

Writers often write to understand, so I kept reading, thinking, and writing.



3/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Whew! I finished.



Everything I promised: How to listen (or not listen) to legal pundits.

It's also about what is dangerous about the entire industry of punditry, speculation, and cable talk shows.

1/terikanefield.com/invented-narra…

For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.

I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."

Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.

I read these books and light bulbs went on.

3/ Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 2
If Trump can win with everything we know about him, what make people think a finding of guilt would change that?

It makes no sense.
Also what if the jury acquits? It can happen.

I do recall the same people thought impeachment and indictment would cause Trump to crumble.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"

We saw the J6 committee findings.

Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."

2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"

A lot of people do.

People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.

I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .

3/
Read 6 tweets
Feb 29
The news takes 2 minutes to convey.

"Here is what the court did." That is news.

Listening to people speculate about why the court did it and what it means is not news.

It is entertainment.

But it is a special kind of entertainment.

1/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.

But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.

2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.

Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:

3/terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Read 5 tweets
Feb 29
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.

1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."

In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.

2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).

I explained that wouldn't happen.

Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.

3/
Read 4 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!

:(