Thomas Zimmer Profile picture
Oct 3 17 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Is 2024 really “the most important election” ever?

I’ll say this: For the foreseeable future, the fate of democracy is on the ballot in every single election.

And those who seek to subvert and abolish democracy might only have to win once to get what they want.

Thread: 1/
The question that defines the political conflict in this country is this: Should America continue the path towards the kind of egalitarian multiracial, pluralistic democracy it has often promised, but actually never has been yet - or abandon that experiment altogether? 2/
In a functioning, stable democracy, the stakes shouldn’t be that high. Elections should be competitions between political factions who disagree with each other, but accept the legitimacy of their opponents and are committed to upholding the democratic system. 3/
In America, that’s evidently not the situation. It has become dogma on the Right to see Democrats as the “enemy within,” a fundamentally illegitimate, “Un-American” faction out to destroy the nation, an enemy that must not be allowed to govern. 4/
We like to pretend we are having policy debates over taxes, health care, or “the economy.” But right now, these debates are almost always defined by the underlying struggle over whether or not America should ever become an egalitarian multiracial, pluralistic democracy. 5/
We like to pretend that the parties ultimately agree on the end goal for America, that they only differ on the best path to get there. That’s simply not true. The political struggle is defined by two fundamentally incompatible visions of what America is and should be. 6/
This is not an entirely new situation. There has never been a consensus around the question of democracy. America: Defined by the idea of egalitarian democracy – or imagined as a land of and for white (wealthy) Christians, never allowing democracy to undermine that order? 7/
Democracy has always been a contested issue. The struggle over democracy has been the norm in U.S. history, as the question of who should get to actually participate – and participate as equal - in the democratic process has always been the defining fault line. 8/
But the fact that this struggle now overlaps so clearly with party lines is indeed the result of a rather recent reconfiguration of the major parties, a process of party realignment or partisan sorting for which the 1960s civil rights breakthroughs were a major catalyst. 9/
The establishment of the civil rights order in the 1960s sped up a process by which those opposed to egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy ultimately united in the Republican Party. Their voices have dominated the GOP since at least the 1970s. 10/
While Democrats came to (mostly) embrace the idea of extending the democratic promise, conservatives were willing to tolerate democracy only as long as it wouldn’t undermine established hierarchies – the supposedly “natural” order of white Christian patriarchal dominance. 11/
Today, the struggle over democracy maps onto the conflict between the parties. That’s the fundamental reality of U.S. politics: Democracy itself has become a partisan issue. As of right now, the Democratic party is the country’s sole (small-d) democratic party. 12/
The fundamental question before the American people is whether or not the Republican Party’s aggressive turn against the democratic experiment and open embrace of anti-democratic extremism in the pursuit of power is an electorally viable strategy? 13/
The fundamental question is: Will the party that remains largely united behind the man who spearheaded a coup attempt and plans to dismantle democracy have to pay a severe price - or be able to consolidate power? 14/
There is a large cadre of pundits out there entirely devoted to fighting back against what they deride as liberal/leftwing “alarmism.” It is all hyperbole, they say, because the Republican Party isn’t that bad, or because maybe it is, but the mythical guardrails are working. 15/
It should be clear by now that these self-proclaimed arbiters of reason will not change their tune, regardless of how straightforward the evidence in front of them, no matter how many times Republicans yell “We really don’t like democracy! We want to get rid of it!” 16/
The Right’s slide into authoritarianism is accelerating. If the country is to ever realize its promise of egalitarian multiracial pluralism, those who prefer democracy need to defend it - even though it’s currently deeply flawed and nowhere near what it often claims to be. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Zimmer

Thomas Zimmer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tzimmer_history

Oct 4
McCarthy out.

Is there anything to be learned from this outrageous spectacle? Probably not. But it should serve as a crucial reminder of what American democracy is up against, what the GOP has become, and what we must expect from Republicans going forward.

Some thoughts: 1/
It might be tempting to look at the chaotic Republican infighting on display (15 tries to find a Speaker - and then boom, he’s gone!) and conclude that these people, no matter their intentions, will ultimately be stopped by their own incompetence. 2/
Republicans in the House are unlikely to ever gel into an effective governing machine. But they also don’t need to, from the perspective of the larger reactionary project. Chaos might be all that is needed to sabotage any attempt at halting the slide into authoritarianism. 3/
Read 9 tweets
Sep 30
Weekend reading: Over the past two weeks, I wrote 9,000 words on the problem of #polarization - or rather:

On how the “polarization” narrative obscures more than it illuminates and why that’s exactly what makes it so attractive to elites across the political spectrum. 1/
Screenshot of my “Democracy Americana” Substack newsletter: “The Treacherous Allure of the ‘Polarization’ Dogma: On the limits and pitfalls of a narrative that obscures more than it illuminates – A Manifesto”
Screenshot of my latest “Democracy Americana” Substack newsletter: “Why America’s Elites Love to Decry ‘Polarization’: The fact that it obscures the actual political conflict is the feature, not the bug of the ‘polarization’ narrative.”
In Part I, my critique of the polarization framework: It privileges stability and social cohesion over social justice and equal participation; it gets the diagnosis of the current situation wrong; and it indulges an ahistorical nostalgia for a golden age that never existed. 2/ Screenshot of my “Democracy Americana” Substack newsletter: “The Treacherous Allure of the ‘Polarization’ Dogma: On the limits and pitfalls of a narrative that obscures more than it illuminates – A Manifesto”
Once “polarization” is adopted as an overarching diagnosis, as a governing historical and political paradigm, it obscures what the key challenge to achieving a pluralistic democracy is – the anti-democratic radicalization of the Right. 3/
Read 12 tweets
Sep 29
On Feinstein: I understand people’s concerns over ageism and, more importantly, how sexism and racism might shape criticism of older women or people of color in positions of power. However, centering personal accomplishment, no matter how impressive, is never the way forward. 1/
Because of the advanced age of so many liberal/Democratic/progressive people in positions of political power - in Congress, on the Supreme Court, in the White House… - there’s simply no way to avoid this crucially important debate. Past mistakes have had catastrophic effects. 2/
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a paradigmatic case. She was, in many ways, a heroic figure, her accomplishments awe-inspiring. Isn’t it outrageous to ask such a woman to step aside? Maybe. But it’s also entirely the wrong question to ask from the perspective of progressive politics. 3/
Read 6 tweets
Sep 26
Why America’s Elites Love to Decry “Polarization”
 
The fact that it obscures the actual political conflict is the feature, not the bug of the “polarization” narrative.
 
A thread, outlining the key arguments of my new piece: 1/ // Screenshot of my latest “Democracy Americana” Substack newsletter: “Why America’s Elites Love to Decry ‘Polarization’: The fact that it obscures the actual political conflict is the feature, not the bug of the ‘polarization’ narrative. //
The “polarization” narrative does more to obscure than to illuminate the current situation; it indulges an ahistorical nostalgia for a golden age that never existed; and it privileges unity, stability, and social cohesion over social justice and equal participation. 2/
If the “polarization” framework offers little diagnostic value and instead creates a misleading narrative that distorts our understanding of recent history and the current political conflict – why are people from across the political spectrum so insistent on clinging to it? 3/
Read 21 tweets
Sep 24
Shamefully silly to publish such utter nonsense even at the best of times - a complete disaster doing it in the current situation in which a paper that has adopted “Democracy dies in darkness” as its official slogan should have other things to alert and inform the public about.
The mainstream media is not coming to the rescue of American democracy. The struggle against the authoritarian threat resulting from the anti-democratic radicalization of the Right will have to be won in spite of a media environment that continuously incentivizes such nonsense.
A serious person wouldn’t even think about writing such a piece. A serious editor would send it back to the columnist. A paper seriously concerned about informing the public and confronting the audience with substantive perspectives wouldn’t platform it. Yet here we are.
Read 12 tweets
Sep 18
A Manifesto Against the Pervasive “Polarization” Narrative
 
On the treacherous allure of the #polarization dogma and the limits and pitfalls of a narrative that obscures more than it illuminates.
 
A short thread, outlining the key arguments of my new piece: 1/ Screenshot of my latest “Democracy Americana” Substack newsletter: “The Treacherous Allure of the ‘Polarization’ Dogma: On the limits and pitfalls of a narrative that obscures more than it illuminates – A Manifesto”
We need to be more critical towards “polarization” as the central diagnosis of our time. In most cases, at least in the way the concept has been popularized and is popularly used, it obscures more than it illuminates, and quite often, those who deploy it do so deliberately. 2/
I would like to offer an empirical, a historical, and a normative critique of the “polarization” framework. On the normative level, the “polarization” paradigm privileges unity, stability, and social cohesion over social justice and equal participation. 3/
Read 31 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(