Past eras of stable white Christian patriarchal dominance are widely sanitized and mythologized in our political discourse.
A thread, outlining the key arguments of my new piece: 1/
Much of the political discourse is animated by a longing for a “golden age” that never actually existed. This pervasive sense of nostalgia blunts and undermines the mainstream response to the reactionary assault on democratic multiracial pluralism. 2/
The longing to turn the clock back is hardly confined to MAGA world. Two of the central, widely accepted diagnoses of our time, for instance, are both grounded in nostalgia: The narrative of “polarization” and the idea that “cancel culture” constitutes a national emergency. 3/
At the core of both the “polarization” and the “cancel culture” tales is the idea that it used to be better, that America is on a dangerous path away from an exemplary period in the recent past – a golden era of consensus and bipartisanship, or a golden era of free speech. 4/
Beyond offering a misleading interpretation of the present, the “polarization” narrative comes with a hefty dose of “golden age” nostalgia for a long-lost “consensus” – it tells a story of decline, suggesting that the status quo ante before the 60s was one of unity and order. 5/
But political “consensus,” to the extent it ever existed, was usually confined to white male elites and based on a cross-partisan accord to leave a discriminatory social order intact and deny marginalized groups equal representation and civil rights. 6/
Not coincidentally, “polarization” started when one party broke with the white elite consensus and supported – albeit reluctantly – the civil rights revolution of the 60s. “Polarization” is the price U.S. society has had to pay for real progress towards multiracial pluralism. 7/
A similar dynamic characterizes much of the “cancel culture” discourse and lends legitimacy to the diagnosis that America is experiencing a “free speech crisis” – an idea the Right has gleefully and successfully weaponized in service of a reactionary political project. 8/
Unless we are talking about wealthy white Christian men only, it makes little sense to construct a version of U.S. history in which previous eras were characterized by greater freedom while the very recent past has been marked by a loss of free speech. 9/
Combine the ideas of “polarization” and “cancel culture” into a myth of a past golden age of stability, unity, and freedom and you get the kind of easy-to-weaponize nostalgia that provides fertile ground for anyone who promises to restore a more stable equilibrium. 10/
How far should the clock be turned back? The current state-level Republican assault on the post-1960s civil rights regime suggests that the GOP is dominated by forces determined to take society and culture back to at least the white Christian patriarchal regime of the 1950s. 11/
The clear majority of Americans rejects this vision. Yet many “moderate” conservatives and people on the Center have provided cover for the increasingly authoritarian rightwing minoritarianism that constitutes the key threat to pluralistic democracy. 12/
This has manifested most clearly in the mainstream opinion pages, where the radicalizing reactionary mobilization against democracy has been accompanied by a constant drumbeat of anti-“woke” commentary and warnings about the dangers of leftwing illiberalism. 13/
Claiming that none of this has any connection to the radicalizing reactionary policies against “wokeism,” that it hasn’t helped undermine the resilience of the center, broadly speaking, to stand against the assault of basic liberties and civil rights, is utterly disingenuous. 14/
The pervasive nostalgia among the nation’s elite commentariat is a reflection of widespread anxieties regarding the fundamental social, cultural, and demographic changes America has been undergoing over the past few decades – anxieties the Right is gleefully weaponizing. 15/
Once you’ve convinced yourself that the country is coming apart, you might decide it’s ultimately preferable to lend your support to those who promise to turn the clock back rather than to the “radical Left.” Even if it means you’ll have to hold your nose while doing so. 16/
Nostalgia is a powerful part of the human condition. It can easily become a filter through which every political, social, and cultural information is absorbed. And if a political movement offers to bring back what has supposedly been lost, that can be hard to resist. 17/
A more accurate understanding of American history - one that doesn’t idolize consensus and stability, but acknowledges that they often stifled racial and social progress - is not the solution, but might help counter the politics of weaponized nostalgia. 18/
In U.S. history, the price for extending democracy has always been political instability – or: division, polarization – because demands for equality and social justice are inherently destabilizing to an order based on traditional white Christian patriarchal authority. 19/
American democracy was stable whenever it didn’t interfere too much with a political, social, and cultural order in which wealthy white Christians – and white Christian men, in particular – got to be on top and got to define what did and what did not count as “real America.” 20/
Conversely, moments of racial and social progress – or even just perceived progress – have always been conflictual, have always led to a reactionary counter-mobilization that threatened to abolish democracy altogether rather than accept multiracial pluralism. 21/
Similarly, there was no talk of a “free speech crisis” as long as those in power got to define the boundaries of what was / wasn’t acceptable speech – before traditionally marginalized groups gained enough influence and the technological means to make their claims heard. 22/
Nostalgia is a common reaction to change. And weaponized nostalgia is a powerful tool of reactionary politics. Let’s not fall for it. Absolutely no need to mythologize past eras of stable white Christian patriarchal rule.
Find the link in my bio, to hopefully avoid throttling:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
That’s actually the new consensus enemy on the Right, uniting the rightwing online and pundit sphere with the mainstream of Republican politics. And it’s a chimera entirely detached from the political and socio-economic realities of American life.
In the reactionary imagination, Trump is *not* part of the “ruling class” - because “It’s about culture” as Dreher puts it. That’s the same reason why Clarence Thomas, according to Ron DeSantis’ new book, isn’t “ruling class,” while every lefty student and activist absolutely is.
DeSantis devotes much of his 2023 book “The Courage to Be Free,” his letter of application for the presidency, to presenting himself as a noble warrior against the “ruling elite,” which he defines as anyone who adheres to “woke” ideology.
Moralizing Nostalgia Leads to Bad History – and Helps the Anti-Democratic Right
David Brooks’ “How America Got Mean” offers an ahistorical tale that obscures rather than illuminates – and provides fertile ground for a politics of reaction.
A thread, based on my new piece:
The story Brooks tells is one of moral decay – where once there was personal virtue and a whole network of institutions dedicated to “moral formation,” there is now a black hole of amoral emptiness that people try to fill by engaging in “moral war” and “tribalism.” 2/
Brooks’ story doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and is indicative of a much larger problem: A pervasive longing for a golden past that never really existed, providing dangerously fertile ground for a reactionary politics of weaponized nostalgia. 3/
This is precisely it. And I will add: The “compromises” Yglesias is demanding wouldn’t just entrench injustice, but actively roll back civil liberties and basic rights.
It’s all presented as a “reasonable” effort to “prevent backlash” - the eternal battle cry of those who seek to delegitimize the supposed “excesses” of social justice activism and any kind of politics that aims to level traditional hierarchies.
This has often led to a specific kind of backlash politics, driven by a logic of defeatist appeasement and pre-emptive abandonment of justice, equality, and progress in the name of “unity” or to prevent “backlash.”
Take the ability to block away, and this place immediately becomes utterly unusable for anyone who doesn’t revel in being overwhelmed by an avalanche of racist, misogynistic, bigoted filth - and that’s intentional, of course. An incitement of abuse.
The decision to take away the ability to block epitomizes the rightwing project to restore dominance: It creates a paradise for racists, misogynists, bigots of all kind to attack and abuse anyone they refuse to accept as equal, anyone who has the audacity to demand respect.
It’s the next escalation of a deliberate assault on what rightwing forces identified as a public space captured by “the Left” - part of reactionary counter-mobilization seeking to restore dominance and supremacy over such spaces and all “woke” groups and ideas demanding equality.
“This should be decided at the ballot box” is such an utterly deranged thing to say when the reason why we are in this situation is that Trump and his enablers didn’t respect the decision at the ballot box and instead engaged in a vast conspiracy to end constitutional government.
It is one thing to argue that holding Trump accountable in court won’t magically solve the political problem of Trumpism and the anti-democratic radicalization of the Right. But this is something different entirely – a disqualifying level of bad faith and dishonesty.
As they are rallying around the man they have chosen as their leader, nothing is ever too outlandish, too ridiculous, too bizarre, too disingenuous, too bad faith for rightwingers. There’s absolutely no line of dishonesty they don’t feel justified to cross.
Sunday reading: Rightwing Dreams of American Reconquista
A counter-revolutionary zeal, desire for vengeance, and lust for radicalism characterizes today’s Right.
Thoughts on what unites Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Christopher Rufo, and Nate Hochman:
A desire for radical measures to defend the “virtuous minority” – and the laws of God and/or nature as they supposedly manifest in traditional hierarchies of race, gender, religion, and wealth – against the “Un-American” forces of “woke” leftism is shared across the Right. 2/
The general sentiment that “Conservatism is no longer enough,” that “We need to stop calling ourselves conservatives,” is being echoed over and over again within the reactionary intellectual and pundit sphere. 3/