@LilyMasonPhD, @perrybaconjr, and I discuss the larger implications of the January 6 Committee’s decision to recommend prosecution: the potential pitfalls as well as the role of legal procedures in solving a political problem like Trumpism more generally (minute 2:45-29:00).
That sparked a rant about the “History will judge” fallacy: “History” is a never-ending struggle, an always-raging debate on the past. Don’t wait for it to deliver justice. That’s on us, now. “History” is not coming to the rescue of American democracy (at the 29:00 minute mark).
Also: Now that the January 6 Committee has finished its work, we reflect on what it has and has not achieved, about the story the Committee has decided to tell, and on the dangers of focusing too narrowly on Trump as the threat to democracy (minute 32:15-53:00).
The biggest threat to democracy is not just Trump, but a Republican Party obstructing all attempts to hold anyone accountable, remaining fully committed to the quest of installing authoritarian rule by a reactionary minority. That was decidedly not the Committee’s focus.
And: Culture wars! Identity politics! We dissect the origins and implications of these terms, assess their utility for making sense of the current moment, and discuss how they’ve been weaponized in service of a reactionary political projects to obscure more than they illuminate.
What some like to deride as “empty culture war stuff,” a mere distraction, is actually a struggle over what “America” should be, who should get to define it – and therefore, who gets to dominate politically, culturally, economically. The stakes are enormous (minute 53:00-1:09:30)
The term “identity politics” has been weaponized to delegitimize the voices of traditionally marginalized groups. But all politics is identity politics – only we don’t call it that as long as it’s shaped by the sensibilities and interests of white men (from minute 1:09:30).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reactionaries largely agree with Putin’s critique of the weak, “woke” West. To the Right, the fight against multiracial pluralism overrides everything else.
Last week, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington culminated in an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress in which he thanked the U.S. and pleaded with American lawmakers to continue their support for his country.
America is divided. That’s not news. But the authoritarian ruler in the Kremlin deciding to invade a democratic neighbor – that’s the type of international crisis that traditionally might have inspired some closing of the ranks: Set differences aside, let domestic quarrels rest.
An incitement to commit violence, that’s exactly what this is. If you find that hyperbolical, remember that this “Evil people are coming to groom and/or mutilate your kids” propaganda is always accompanied by the message that these same people are in charge of all institutions.
These far-right extremist activists, with full support of the rightwing media machine, keep riling up their audience about “woke” forces of evil that supposedly are an acute threat to the moral fabric of the nation, to the bodies and the very lives of innocent children.
And they are also telling their base that the entire system is dominated by those same radically anti-American forces: the Democratic Party, all those institutions that have been overrun by “woke” activists – and so the solution cannot come from within the system.
ICYMI over the weekend: I wrote about the Right’s open embrace of the coercive power of the state, the rise of National Conservatism, and the role of reactionary intellectuals in the broader rightwing assault on democracy.
This is Part III in an ongoing series on how to capture what is happening on the Right. In Part I, I wrote about the counter-mobilization (rather than: backlash) against egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy (rather than simply: democracy): thomaszimmer.substack.com/p/democracy-fa…
In Part II, I started examining how conservatives are openly embracing a much more radical politics – focusing on the telling wave of rightwing thinkers and pundits explicitly rejecting the label “conservatism” for their project: thomaszimmer.substack.com/p/conservatism…
I’m so confused: The leader of what the Right tells me is a fundamentally “Un-American” faction of “woke” leftist radicals who have been waging a merciless War on Christmas for decades, all part of their quest to extinguish religious life in America, is… celebrating Christmas?
Lest we forget: The idea that some nefarious leftist, globalist forces are waging a “War on Christmas” has a very long history on the extremist, conspiratorial Right, going back many decades. Infamously, in the late 1950s, the John Birch Society thought the UN were behind it all!
The War on Christmas had its modern breakthrough in the early 2000s, when the rightwing propaganda machine decided it was a useful tool to mobilize white conservative Christians. Bill O’Reilly began running regular “Christmas Under Siege” segments on Fox News in December 2004.
As always, @RonBrownstein is spot on - in many ways, the hearings were more impressive and successful than anyone could have reasonably expected, and the Committee made a strong case against Trump. But the “one man” story it chose to tell provides cover for the Republican Party.
We talked about precisely these shortcomings and pitfalls of the Committee’s approach on the new @USDemocracyPod (starts at the 32:15 mark): The key threat to democracy is not Trump, but the anti-democratic radicalization of the party that elevated him in the first place.
In a narrow sense, it is obviously correct that “one man” was responsible for January 6: No Trump, no insurrection. But the auto-coup attempt was part of an *ongoing* assault on democracy, an attempt to install reactionary minority rule. That’s very much not the doing of one man.
How Do We Save Democracy from Donald Trump? A reflection on the work of the January 6 Committee and what comes next – Also: We properly dissect the terms “culture wars” and “identity politics.” podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/is-…
In this episode: The January 6 Committee is recommending prosecution - Justice is (maybe) coming for Donald Trump. We discuss the larger implications of this decision, the potential pitfalls, and the role of legal procedures in solving a political problem like Trumpism.
Added bonus: A rant about the “History will judge!” fallacy. “History” is a never-ending struggle, an always-raging debate on the past. Don’t wait for it to deliver justice. That’s on us, now. “History” is not coming to the rescue of American democracy.