I wish this article on violent political rhetoric had included experts on violent political rhetoric (unlocked): nytimes.com/2022/08/13/nyr…
Scholars of rhetoric & violence: @HunttheDevil (Bob Ivie especially on war rhetoric) @rhosa (Rosa Eberly especially on gun violence) @ErsulaOre (Ersula Ore especially on racial violence & lynching)
Could also just ping the #teamrhetoric hashtag to see who is available right away.
Like, it's great to reach out to political scientists like the super smart @LilyMasonPhD (yay, so happy to see you quoted here), but also there's a whole field of rhetoric & violence scholars who could also probably say some smart things about how violent words work.
I don't mean to be an a$$hole (AITA?), but part of what I've been trying to do with my public scholarship over the last few years is raise the profile of my field so reporters think of us when they write about things we're experts about. It's frustrating when they don't.
And there are many more experts on this! (more tk)
@KurtBraddock Kurt Braddock on rightwing stochastic terrorism
Heather Suzanne Woods & Leslie Ann Hahner on rightwing memes @RhetoricPJ has a new book on conservative populism
Heather Hayes on violence & extremism
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The background theory that authorizes this absurd statement is the “unitary executive.” Trump, et al want their followers to believe that the president is a king or emperor and not at all beholden to the rule of law.
This isn't how presidential archives work. Those papers are the custody of the National Archives, which work with presidents to create presidential libraries. The presidents don't own their presidential library or its contents. Though they do seek to influence the story it tells.
I recommend this book, which examines how presidential libraries work to help former presidents tell their hero story/shape their narrative for history: books.google.com/books/about/Pr…
For example, we have the Bush Library on our campus. You can read about it here (note that the email addresses are nara.gov): bush41.org/about/presiden…
I know y'all know this, but Trump can post a truthie that claims that he encourages Garland to release the documents, but that's not legally binding. Expect his lawyers to decline and him to blame them for it being kept secret while continuing to call it a hoax. Like his taxes.
There's no upside for Trump in releasing the docs and many downsides.
If you haven't had the chance to read the motion to unseal the docs, here it is (unlocked): 🔥nytimes.com/interactive/20…
I suspect that there is no amount of detail that Garland will be able to provide us today that will satisfy the rightwing critics. Watch for how "politics is war and the enemy cheats" is deployed to cover over and explain and provide a frame for whatever we learn today.
AJ, et al having a normal one (for them). To be clear: it would not have been any different under any other circumstances. No matter how the warrant was executed, no matter how much information was provided, no matter what the legal cause they would have invoked the same frame.
Like I said last night, the "politics is war and the enemy cheats" Really Big Lie is very useful for the rightwing:
Deep State Coup is good branding, expect to hear it a lot more. They’ve been struggling against the Jan 6 treason coup framing (“patriot purge”), so seizing on this frame now is opportune (kariotic).