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.
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. . .
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/
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/
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."
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.
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.
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/
. . . 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:
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/