An important line from the @DavidAFrench piece today: "About half of self-identified evangelicals now attend church monthly or less often. They have religious zeal, but they lack religious community. So they find their band of brothers and sisters in the Trump movement." /1
But think about that: It suggests how shallow the roots are of a particular kind of religious belief that is less a belief system than an expression of social identity. (If your replacement for Christian worship is a Trump rally, maybe church-going wasn't about Christ.) /2
I've seen that with ethnic churches, where being from a certain country is more important than the mass or liturgy. It's not a surprise that the collapse of some strands of evangelicalism led to the cultish experience of Trumpism. /3
As French notes, you can't displace Trumpism with "nothing", because it only exists for many people as a form of social tribalism. You can replace it with something *worse*, but hard to undo the jolt that comes from the joy of relieving boredom and anomie with shared hatred. /4
David's probably more optimistic than I am about whether such people can recover some sense of civic identity outside of the cult, but it's not going to come from persuasion and carefully crafted policy positions. /5x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was thinking about this today while, of all things, hearing John Denver.
Bear with me.
I was listening to "Country Roads" and thinking of the great diversity of America. I was on my way to a beach in RI, but I've seen the beauty of WV.
All of it is America.
/1
When I would travel in the old USSR, or even in the new Russia, if you ran into anyone from the United States, it was like family.
Boston? Wheeling? Jackson? Didn't matter. It was like encountering long-lost cousins.
/2
As much as I've been a part of the Blue/Red state divide, I hate it. And sure, I can blame some of it on the Dems, but elite culture warriors in the conservative media really created the sense that you had to hate people based on their license plates. /3
Trump has been up to his eyeballs in crimey stuff since he was a young man. He's seen people do time. He's been around the mob. He is not deterrable; he is a sociopath and he doesn't see himself as subject to the rules by which others live. So, Nixon's pardon means nothing. /2
People around Nixon went to jail, and did time, including the freakin' Attorney General, who did nearly 2 years in the jug. And yet, no one since has been very much deterred by that.
So, enough with how tougher outcomes in Watergate could have deterred Trump. /3
I'm going to go all Emily Post here and say that some titles are lifetime titles as a matter of protocol and respect, rather than right granted by the government. (I say this as a holder of one of them.) But "president", as Ms Post would note, is not one of them. /1
Not so long ago, America had one "president as a time" and only the holder of the title used it, as is proper for a "presiding" officer. It's why the Senate president is only president on the podium. Calling all former presidents "president" is a mistake. /2
When JFK called Ike for advice during the Cuban crises, Ike called him "Mr. President" and JFK called him "General." This was a time when people understood the use of titles. No one keeps the title of President; they hold it in trust for all of us for four years at a time.
/3
For all of you who think Musk is some agent of Saudi investors or other nefarious actors who you think want to destroy Twitter, consider this: They're probably wincing right now. States with agendas want a strong and authoritative Twitter, not a joke site. Bear with me. /1
If your goal is to spread your agenda, you want the venue to be respected, full of dependable sources, so that your influence operations can be one more among those sources. If you're putting out bullshit, you want it on the same rack as the NYT and WaPo, not tabloids. /2
You also want to use your influence with the owner so that when you slip pollution into the info stream, it doesn't get lost. There are things regimes want to communicate. You want to create sources that *look* dependable and real. /3
Since I hate to leave a debate without granting at least some points to my critics - seriously - let me now tell what I *do* worry about when it comes to American fascism.
Because I am not Pollyanna on this stuff. And I worry more than you might think. /1
The things I look from a US fascist movement: 1. Organized campaigns of violence against democratic institutions, including courts, legislatures, and the press. (One jacquerie on J6 isn't it, but it was a *severe* test.) Armed ppl in legislative chambers has happened. Red flag./2
If that violence stops the functioning of courts and other institutions. (Again, *organized violence - not just one-offs, lone wolves, or some whack-job rioters.) I was, I will admit, apprehensive about how Trump's arraignment would go.
It went well. Good. /2
A longish and quixotic thread on the misuse of "fascism."
Why does it matter what we call things? Because labels tend to guide choices and allocation of attention and political resources. So I'm going to give this a try.
/1
Fascist regimes, as we knew them in the 20th century, have some things in common with the current American right: cult of personality, vicious nostalgia, and anti-intellectualism. But that describes *many* authoritarian regimes. Why is "fascism" different and more dangerous? /2
Because fascist regimes had articulated ideologies, highly disciplined cadres, well-developed party structures, and bureaucratized chains of command. This made them more resilient and highly dangerous because they were focused and effective. /3