Thread by @AceofSpadesHQ

A thread: "Cancellation" versus "Just normal politics"

A few years back, when people started really getting animated about cancelling cancel culture, people began suggesting that pumping out dirt about a political opponent during a campaign might be like "cancellation."

After all, a political campaign consists of digging up past statements and actions of a person to try to get them fired -- or at least not hired -- for a job. In this case, the job of being an elected official.

And so people began to wonder: "Wait, if I just dredge up derogatory information about a politician to try to get him 'fired' -- or turned out of office -- isn't that like a cancellation?"

The answer is, and always was: Yes, that is exactly like a cancellation.

But here's the thing: That's how politics works. It's how it's always worked.

The problem is not in "cancelling" politicians -- it's in waging political campaigns against private citizens.

In other words: Politics is dirty and what makes it dirty and seedy is exactly this nasty practice of digging dirt on someone who is usually a perfect stranger to try to keep them from assuming an office. It feels nasty. Because it is nasty.

But there's no other way to do it.

The problem came after Obama's Ascension when people, mostly on the left but sometimes on the right, began using the nasty tactics of political campaigns against private citizens holding private, not public, jobs.

Suddenly we didn't just have public votes about who would be mayor or governor or an elected judge.

No, suddenly we were having public plebiscites, usually on Twitter, about whether someone could continue in his job as an ARCHITECT at a private firm.

We weren't just combing through political candidates' twitter feeds to find statements that revealed their true intentions and true political beliefs.

Now we were combing through private citizens' old statements to get them fired from their jobs as a truck driver.

Politics itself always has and always will involve this "cancellation" tactic.

The sin was in turning every single aspect of normal civilian life into a political campaign, where people were forced to issue political statements to appease a mob to remain employed as a doctor.

We must allow the dirty practice of dredging up old statements and ruthlessly interrogating people's characters and beliefs when "hiring" them for -- electing them to -- political office.

We must NOT allow this practice when determining if a plumber can remain a plumber.

Turning to Tucker Carlson: Tucker Carlson and his defenders are now claiming that it's similarly a "cancellation" when some people attempt to reduce someone's political influence or exclude him from a political movement.

WRONG. Just like with "canceling" a politician seeking office, politics ALWAYS consists of elevating political leaders, including thought leaders, you agree with and marginalizing or denigrating those you don't agree with.

Tucker Carlson can hardly dispute this, as he is currently waging nonstop political campaigns to reduce the influence of Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and anyone else he deems insufficiently anti-Israel.

It cannot possibly be the "rule" that Tucker Carlson can wage endless political war -- filled with nasty insinuations and questions about "dual loyalty" -- against his enemies but the rest of us are all required to bow to Tucker or else we "cancel" him.

Indeed, no one in the MAGA movement can possibly object to reducing people's influence or excluding them from positions of influence in a political movement because, of course, well did that together in displacing and ejecting the neocons and NeverTrumpers.

And there is and was NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Politics consist of forming alliances and coalitions and, critically, excluding those from your coalition who do not agree with you or who would harm your coalition.

This is the most basic, fundamental aspect of the right of free association. When I form my political coalition, I have to define what it is, and more importantly, what it is NOT.

No one in MAGA would welcome in a bunch of Zohran Mamdani communists. We would suspect that they intended to subvert our movement and turn it into something antithetical to our beliefs (and we'd be right).

We do not have to "unite with communists."

There is nothing wrong with this. We MUST do it. If we just allow left-wing Democrats and actual communists (and jihadists) to "join MAGA," well, that's the end of MAGA. We would admit a large block of people who want to change MAGA into an Islamist-Communist movement.

So now comes Tucker Carlson demanding we change MAGA -- and remember, the top dog of MAGA is vociferously pro-Israel -- and that we have to admit some extremely unsavory, Nazi-leaning (at least) antisemites into the party.

And when we say "No," he says: You're cancelling us.

Is that cancellation? Is it also "cancellation" if I say that AOC, Zohran Mamdani, and Elizabeth Warren also must not be permitted to be influencers and leaders in MAGA?

What is the difference, apart from some people really really liking Carlson's antisemitic turn?

Tucker's guest and apparent ally Nick Fuentes told us "Grow up, Hitler was cool, just admit it."

Well let me say to the Tucker/Fuentes supporters: "Grow up, stop claiming we're not allowed to do politics in actual politics."

Tucker wants to change MAGA. I like it as it is.

All of these are arguments are self-serving and cynical, just attempting to privilege one political position -- the anti-Israel and usually antisemitic one -- as beyond contestation and argument and political opposition.

If Tucker Carlson can continue endlessly attempting to eject -- to "cancel" -- Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, and Ben Shapiro from his 'Face It, Hitler was Cool" movement, then we are allowed to similarly eject, to "cancel," him.

Period.

Grow up.