Michael Podhorzer is a keen political analyst who the assistant to the president for strategic research for the AFL-CIO, a federation of 55 labor unions representing 12.5 million members. His observations in this post are well worth reading.
His insightful article begins:
When, in the Dobbs decision, Samuel Alito declared that Roe v. Wade had been “wrongly decided,” he succinctly stated the credo of a resurgent revanchist coalition that believes the Twentieth Century was wrongly decided. Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has been instrumental in advancing this coalition’s agenda, which is to dismantle the New Deal order and reverse the civil and social rights gains made since the postwar period.
The execution of this agenda has been nothing short of a slow-motion coup against our freedoms. The Supreme Court has not only transformed itself into a democratically unaccountable lawmaking body; it has used this illegitimate power to create a one-way ratchet that makes the rest of our system less democratically accountable. Yet no matter how many times the Court tightens this ratchet, our political and opinion leaders keep asking whether the Court risks losing its legitimacy if it keeps this up – not what we should do now that legitimacy is a distant memory at best.
We hear of “conservative” judges, yet not one of the six Republican-appointed justices demonstrate fealty to any consistent set of principles beyond giving more power to the gatekeepers who put them on the Court. Instead, we must call them the Federalist Society justices. All six are current or former members of the Federalist Society, an enterprise sponsored by right wing billionaires and corporations whose intention was capture of the legal system – and capture it they did. They knew this capture would be necessary in order to implement their agenda, since they couldn’t count on the majority of Americans to vote against their own rights and freedoms.
The campaign to repeal and replace the 20th century is an extremely well-funded enterprise, organized by people who have never made any secret of their plans. None of this is happening by accident.
Yet for the most part, media coverage of SCOTUS continues to focus on the details of the individual cases on the docket: the arguments each side is putting forth, the likelihood that certain justices will find those arguments persuasive, and what a “win” for either side could look like. In the context of our current crisis, however, doing this is like narrating each segment of a bullet’s trajectory without naming the assassin or his target.
In this post, we’ll take a few steps back from that “what did the bullet do today” perspective.
- The Coalition Against the Twentieth Century – This section identifies the antagonists, outlines how they came together through the Southern Strategy, and shows how two historical accidents – the 2000 presidential elections and the 2010 midterms – enabled the massive power grabs that have brought us to our current crisis.
- The Originalist Con – This section reveals just how blatant and unprincipled the Federalist Society Majority has been in its execution of the coalition’s agenda.
- The Federalist Society Majority Juggernaut – This section lays out the enormous progress the Federalist Society Majority has already made to overturn the “wrongly decided” 20th century. This has included giving MAGA state legislatures new license to curtail voting rights and gerrymander themselves impregnable majorities that closely resemble the region’s one-party authoritarian rule during the Jim Crow era.
- No Longer Legitimate? We conclude with a look at how the Court’s “crisis of legitimacy” is actually a crisis for American democracy as a whole.
The Coalition Against the Twentieth Century
This revanchist coalition has two factions, which have come together through the Federalist Society to capture the nation’s legal system. One faction, which I call the MAGA industrial complex, is a symbiotic combination of white grievance media (e.g. Fox, Breitbart), white Evangelical churches and their political expressions dedicated to white Christian nationalism, as well as supremacist militias and the NRA.
When most of us hear “Make America Great Again,” we think of voters in their MAGA caps being stoked on by white grievance entrepreneurs like Trump and Tucker Carlson. We should instead be thinking of the elites and institutions that helped make MAGA one of America’s most successful political movementsto date. We know, for instance, that the white Christian nationalist movement was built not around a moral concern for fetal life, but around panic over the court-ordered revocation of tax-exempt status for religious schools—particularly Bob Jones University, as well as the private religious “segregation academies” that were founded in response to Brown v. Board of Education.¹
The other faction in the coalition against the 20th century consists of the plutocrats and rapacious capitalists whose efforts long predate Trump and MAGA. Their efforts were largely unsuccessful until the 1960’s. Until then, the Republican Party, which was the party of business, nonetheless acquiesced to the New Deal order. This sentiment was famously expressed by President Eisenhower:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
The Southern Strategy
And then … in 1964 that “splinter” of “Texas oil millionaires” and “conservative” activists wrested the Republican presidential nomination for Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was trounced by 23 points. But rather than dispatching the Goldwater forces to the dustbin of history, this defeat simply convinced many that they would have to give ground on their ambition of electing anyone as “pure” as Goldwater. They were ready when, in 1968, Nixon reversed his position on civil rights, becoming the candidate that fused segregationists’ racist agenda with the traditional Republican business agenda. Nixon’s narrow victory in 1968 was deceptive. George Wallace siphoned off 14 percent of the most extremist voters, and combining Wallace’s and Nixon’s vote share reveals that there was a substantial majority consisting of Democrats (the backlash to the Civil and Voting Rights Acts) and traditional Republican voters. Kevin Phillips best laid out this blueprint in his book The Emerging Republican Majority.
We generally think of the success of the Southern Strategy depending on the direct appeals of national Republicans to southern segregationist Democrats, with those voters changing their party affiliation without changing any of their values. The following map makes vivid something that has gone remarkably unnoticed. As Robert Jones and others have documented, from even before the Civil War, Christian churches played a critical role providing the “moral” basis for white supremacy. In this period, southern Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches continued to provide essential organizational scaffolding for preserving those attitudes and the salience of “social” issues in the region.

Source: American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips
The Tea Party & the Takeover of the Republican Party
Until the election of Barack Obama, Republican presidential candidates and congressional leaders placated the reactionary, nativist, white Christian faction of the party by nominating right-wing judges and embracing the dog whistles and symbolism of white Christian identity, while making little or no progress reversing the civil rights gains of the 1960’s. Indeed, as late as 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized with nearly unanimous congressional support, with Bush claiming credit. This White House press releaseannouncing Bush’s signing would be unimaginable coming from any MAGA Republican now.
We very much remember the 2000 election for its razor thin margin and the Supreme Court brazenly intervening to stop the count and select Bush. But we have all but forgotten that the reason the race was as close as it was can be attributed to Bush’s consolidation of the white Evangelical establishment, and with it, Bible Belt voters that made the race that close in the first place.² While Clinton won the Bible Belt by a hair in 1996, Gore lost it by 12 points – and more consequentially, he lost the electoral votes in 7 Bible Belt states Clinton had won.³ And Kerry would lose the region by an even larger margin, 16 points. Bush stressed his own born again experience and did much for the white Christian establishment, including his “faith based” initiatives.
In response to Obama’s victory – and McCain and the Republican establishment’s immediate acceptance of his legitimacy – the nativist faction formed the Tea Party and focused on developing a political strategy to purge the Republican Party of “RINOs.” The last straw for this faction was Romney’s nomination and defeat. They revolted against the business wing’s “Autopsy” report, which in 2013 urged the GOP to moderate on immigration policies and dampen its racial rhetoric to stay competitive in an increasingly diverse electorate. Trump rushed into that political vacuum, smearing Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers. Crucially, unlike Goldwater, who faced a uniformly hostile and demeaning national media, Trump now had the advantage of the extensive right-wing media system that had since been established, which proved essential to his nomination and victory.
Please continue reading this deeply informed post about the underlying trends that have shaped the present moment in American politics.
So clearly the right-wing, conservative ideologues, culture war instigators, anti-government and anti-authority Americans who are a MINORITY in the country (yes, growing) have a MAJORITY voice in Congress and the Supreme Court (and they have a boat load of money).
This article is compelling. Whose eyes will be on it? Who needs to understand it? How do the masses – the 70% or whatever majority (which means Republicans and Democrats) who are moderate and do not want extremist measures but are not represented anymore – get a hold of this?
To the latter point – I cannot believe the majority of people concur with their certifiable and crazy in Congress, yet they keep getting elected.
Does the percentage of radical-right members of Congress equal the percentage of radical-right Americans? No data to support it – but I’d say no.
Now what?
20th Century Inclusion
1954 Brown v. Board of Education
1965 ESEA
1968 Fair Housing Act
1969 Tinker v. Des Moines
1972 Title IX
1975 P.L. 94-142 IDEA
1982 Plyer v. Doe
1982 Board of Education v. Pico
Then…
20th Century Naming “Failure” and Blaming the Victims
1983 A Nation at Risk
1989 Governors Conference in Charlotte
1994 Goals 2000 and Co-opted Standards movement to reform movement
Then…
21st Century High stakes testing and the Billionaires Boys Club sees an opportunity
, NCLB, RTTT, ESSA
Then….
2009 The Tea Party infiltrates GOP and angry Americans
2016 Election
New Era of “Say anything you want no matter how racist, exclusive, insidious, and hateful it is”
1933, er… 2023 ?
$ + Hate + Self-proclaimed 19th and 20th century majority as victims =
= American fascism?
Nascent American Fascism
“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Washington to be born?”
Well, we know, don’t we.
I always put the Jarvis Prop 98? Campaign and the Bakke case
You really have to read the whole article to understand the full impact of Podhorzer’s thesis. It is interesting that he refers to red states as Confederate states, as it seems we are still fighting The Civil War. While his conclusions are shocking, he backs his assertions with historical and political context, court decisions, election results and recent laws. While he does not mention it, school choice is all part of the Southern strategy as well.
As Wait, What notes, where can we go from here? Podhorzer clearly outlines the right wing vice grip on democracy, what can be done by the relatively disorganized left against the well organized, super well-funded radical right wing? Voting is part of the solution, but there has to be more, a lot more that must be done to push back against this right wing juggernaut.
We are fighting a civil war, but it is a different kind of war. I often refer to a Southern rock group, Drive-By Truckers, and how their music reflects our times and predicaments better than any commentary of which I am aware. Their songs help see it, as well as the helplessness it induces. Actually, better than almost all reporters.
According to recent Dobbs decision, I think it’s ten centuries. Lots of stuff a century old is still too progressive for them.
Alito bit older than moveable type.
Perhaps we are moving toward movable type being gone altogether. I believe it was Pi Ching who had movable type in China several centuries before Gutenberg, but it was of no use to the culture for a variety of reasons.
This is pure hysteria. No Supreme Court is going to rule that the New Deal programs still in place are unconstitutional. And the U.S. is not going to become a fascist or a communist country.
The article is not fascism or communism. It is about how the right has used our institutions and laws to create a system that will perpetuate minority rule while neutralizing majority rule. It is literally about “democracy in chains.”
I wrote that the U.S. is not going to become a fascist or a communist country because the hysterical Right and the hysterical Left make one of those claims every day, e.g. this blog, where all conservatives and Republicans are incipient fascists.
George,
Is the U.S. a Christian/Catholic theocracy? Taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer. Women lost the right to control their bodies on the basis of conservative Catholic beliefs. The SCOTUS decision in Biel v. St. James Catholic school exempted a segment of Catholic organizations from civil rights employment law. Those are just a few examples of where the Court and religion-driven policy is taking the U.S.
Why not? Because you say so?
You’ve provided no reasonable argument for your views except for troll-splaining that just because the people who are gaining unlimited power have given us every reason to believe they want it to happen by their STATED VIEWS, we should join you in your magical thinking that some higher being will prevent those people from doing exactly what they want to do.
Let me guess – you also post on blogs chiding others for not joining you in your absolute certainty that if the mainstream Republicans in Congress had gotten their stated wish to install Trump in power in 2020 because they know Trump won the election, all is well because you say so, and just because those Republicans have made it clear with their words and action that it is their sworn duty for every Republican in Congress and every state government to use their power to keep Trump in office (or be threatened and expelled from the party like Liz Cheney), that George Krautman says it is “hysteria” to worry about what that means for democracy.
“Because I say so” is the argument of a 7 year old who is embarrassed that they don’t have the ability to present intelligent and believable reasons for what they are saying.
Anyone can play the “you are suffering from hysteria if you don’t believe me” game. Very young children with little capacity for reason play it all the time. And so do fascist leaders. Jews were told by people like George Krautman (interesting last name) that they shouldn’t worry about Hitler because they – superior Aryans who knew best – said so. Was that because they were just ignorant, or did they secretly hope that the Jews would suffer the tragedy that was coming? Which of those is your motivation for posting, George?
I work for a living, so unlike the regular commenters on this blog I don’t have all day to post comments here. I’m of Jewish and German descent, so your implying that I’m a Nazi sympathizer is way off target, like almost everything you write. You have major anger issues.
George Krautman you have major anger issues.
This blog has many concerned people writing about their concern for the future and explaining why.
Somehow that makes you so angry and infuriated that you went nuts. You stopped your work and decided to post multiple times what you – completely blinded by your own anger – believe is a reasonable and intelligent comment, which basically consisted of “you are wrong, I said so”.
Now you can try to convince the rest of us that you actually said much more but your comments are right there. You said “don’t call me a Nazi” when no one called you a Nazi. What I said is that your comments are typical of what concerned Jews heard in the early days of the Nazis. First you make insulting comments at people expressing concern (they are hysterical) and then you pronounce that they are wrong because you say so.
George, you felt the need to essentially stop your work, and come here to insult us, tell us we were wrong because you say so, and tell us to shut up.
You are the angry one. You showed yourself as someone who did not want to have any discussion with people who disagreed or were concerned with the future, you wanted them to shut up because you said so.
Your attitude about that speaks for itself. But it is the OPPOSITE of the kind of society where democracy can thrive.
Why does this blog attract a single-digit number of fanatics who spend most of their waking time posting 99+% of the reader comments and who are infuriated by anyone who raises points that even mildly dissent from the preferred orthodoxies?
George,
Just to clarify: in the decade since this blog launched, it has had 40.3 million page views and more than 16 million visitors. Not single digits.
“infuriated by anyone who raises points that even mildly dissent from the preferred orthodoxies?” says someone who is infuriated that they are being called out for offering unsupported opinions to justify their insults, so they can profess that their insults are fact-based instead of anger-based.
Since George Krautman continues to just insult readers and won’t answer, can someone else tell me what “points” George Krautman “raised” in any of his comments he felt so compelled to post here?
As far I can tell, the “points” George makes are that we are all hysterical over nothing because we are worrying our pretty little heads over nothing.
If George made other “points”, they were buried in the the insults and anger and mischaracterizations that dominated his comments.
The right wing always wants to frame the discussion on their terms.
George Krautman wants us to discuss whether we are extremely hysterical or just a little too much hysterical. Let’s spend lots of time discussing the degree of hysteria in these comments. As we all know, a discussion about how much hysteria we have and whether it is justified is exactly the conversation the right wing wants us to have.
The conversation the far right does not want us to have is a discussion about what their policies are, what they have been doing to grasp power to achieve policies that they could not achieve via democracy, and the various statements and actions they have made that makes it clear how dangerous this is.
We can’t discuss the danger. We must instead defend ourselves against attacks from George that discussing the danger is a sign of our hysteria. Because George says so.
This stuff works, if we ignore it and don’t call it out for exactly what it is.
In George’s defense, he didn’t say the blog’s readership numbers in the single digits. And it’s true that the “number of fanatics who spend most of their waking time posting 99+% of the reader comments and who are infuriated by anyone who raises points that even mildly dissent from the preferred orthodoxies” is in the single digits.
FLERP, I have no idea what “point,” if any, George was making other than to insult the readers of this blog. Why does he care that some readers comment frequently? Why is that an indictment of the blog, it’s readers, or those who comment? Everyone is welcome to comment.
What are the “preferred orthodoxies” that trouble George? Anti-racism? Anti-Trump? Anti-fascism? If those “orthodoxies” bother you or George, read a rightwing blog. Those so-called “orthodoxies” are the principles that readers of this blog share.
Note the intentional repeating of the word “fanatic”.
Those who have been reduced to calling other people “fanatics” with “hysteria” instead of offering evidence or reason to support their nasty attacks are constantly spewing reveal themselves.
Trump was notorious for this. He spewed insults and as soon as he was called out for those, he played the victim, and mischaracterized those who criticized him for the insults he spewed as doing exactly what Trump himself was guilty of.
Maybe all of us suffering from “PURE HYSTERIA” on here can recognize ourselves and how dare we criticize those who call us “fanatics”!
Those who recognize our hysteria and fanaticism are so very wise! They troll-splained why we just can’t match the high standards they set for themselves. The “evidence” they present of their own superior commenting skills is just so convincing. Touche, FLERP!
George Krautman
You are right about one thing, most of the commentators on this blog gave Donald Trump no credit for anything he said . The best example was his honest assessment that the Courts are political. Forget the fitly years that Roe stood .
In 2008 and 2022 they overturned two supreme court precedents on the Second Amendment. One dating to reconstruction the other to the 1920s . States Rights seem to extend to regulating abortion but not guns.
Glacier Northwest v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters will effectively kill the NLRA. Would you like to make a wager ?
As for every Republican being a fascist . You are right there as well . There are some Republicans who left the Party. It is highly inappropriate to call them fascists.
Hi there. I’m a regular, daily commenter here. Are you a middle school teacher? No? You don’t work as much as I do. Keep your insults toward the audience to yourself. I’m in the front row.
Democracy cannot last when capitalism invades government. I’m in my early fifties, and I fear that I will live to see a great conflagration before I die. Democratic governance must be done by luminaries who understand the social contract espoused by Locke and Rousseau, not by myopically narrow minded, shortsighted, Ayn Randian objectivists. It is not hysterical to see the corruption of our government and to know, based on study of history, that empires rise, and when greed rules, empires fall.
The article on which this post is centered is a spot on legal analysis. Read it. And keep your whining to yourself, stranger.
Mr K: since you suggested that people who post on this blog never work, may I invite you to leave with me presently to go put up rafters. Last week it was building concrete forms. Up to last May, I was mostly a teacher. None of my response to your suggestion is kind or appropriate.
If it steps like a goose, . . .
“And the U.S. is not going to become a fascist . . . country.”
No, it’s going to become a country that uses a lot of jingoistic speech about freedom while it acts just like a Fascist country.
You are free. You are free to think just like Glorious Leader. Otherwise, the state guard, in riot gear, will knock down your door, waving their guns at your kids.
Or the Citizens Militia SA will pick you off as you come back from the library where 3/4ths of the books are now gone.
Where 3/4ths of the books are now gone because the Fascists used to the prejudices of their fundamentalist base to keep that base stoked, and libraries made a convenient target for their two-minutes hates.
And, American democracy can’t be overturned despite the evidence of Jan. 6?
If readers aren’t familiar with right wing Sinclair Broadcasting’s Boris Epshteyn, they can read Wikipedia’s summary profile about him. He’s a Georgetown University buddy of Eric Trump. He’s a Trump lawyer who is in the news currently. In 2013, Epshteyn moderated a panel, “Invest in Moscow.” Reportedly, he wrote Trump’s controversial statement in 2017 for Holocaust Remembrance Day. The speech omitted mention of Jewish people.
If there are links between Epshteyn and the Koch network, it can be researched by others.
Russian American, Ilya Shapiro, from the Koch network, was hired by Georgetown for a top position in its law school.
Epshteyn is credited with (he’s a Russian-American and reportedly has Jewish ancestry) with the unprecedented, 42% of the Florida Jewish, Republican vote that Trump received.
“Who is behind the Federalist Society?
Donors to the Federalist Society have included Google, Chevron, Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family. By 2017, the Federalist Society had $20 million in annual revenue. The society holds a national lawyers convention each year in Washington, D.C”
Everything diabolical going on in the United States always seems to have Koch attached to it.
Leonard Leo who has a top position at the Federalist Society is from a conservative religion and is father of 9 kids. He is credited with the judicial wins made by the Federalist Society.
Two people posted here and their comments – which express right wing talking points” — speak directly to how we can start to fight back to save democracy. It also speaks to why the right has been so successful in winning hearts and minds despite so many of their supporters voting against their own family’s self-interest.
Democrats are dangerous. The right wing starts with that “fact” and whether or not that fact is true is irrelevant because it is presented by all as the absolute truth that allows no dissent. Voters don’t hear the Republicans debating and discussing whether Democrats are dangerous — IT IS TRUE! So voters believe it no matter how much evidence the Democrats themselves present that it isn’t. Because the evidence is coming from the Dems themselves so of course it is just as likely to be a lie as the truth. Some people didn’t get why it was such a big deal that someone who embraces far right conservative policies like Liz Cheney HAD to be forced out of the party. But it is a big deal. That happened because in order for the Republicans to gain power, they MUST present all dangers as real with no dissent allowed. Voters must have complete certainty that danger is real. GregB posted a Daily Show video to show how certain those folks are.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. And many voters out there absolutely believe.
And here we are, on the other side, unwittingly HELPING the far right.
We have public discussions — helped by the so-called liberal media — where we discuss “maybe Republicans are dangerous, maybe they aren’t, who knows, it’s really debatable.”
Voters hear one side in unison telling them how much danger they are in from Democrats, and the other side telling them that the Republicans might not be dangerous at all. Or maybe a little, but who knows?
The one thing that all the troll-like posts on here have in common is that they ALL belittle anyone who says that what Republicans are doing is dangerous.
It is very important to the far right — of vital importance – that those who are not right wing Republicans never deliver one strong unified message that the Republican party is dangerous. The Republican Party cannot survive such an onslaught. Republicans need lots of voters willing to vote against their self-interest because they want to stop a dangerous thing from happening. Just listen to Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ speech.
The message voters keep hearing from the rest of us is “we don’t really know if there is a danger or not but vote for democrats or socialists for your economic interests”. Dems/progressives are offering a message that will appeal only to Republican voters who can tolerate putting their families in danger for some economic benefit. And then they wonder why voters keep voting Republican. It is because as long as they believe that danger is real, they will vote to protect their family even if it hurts their pocketbook. Human nature.
We no longer have debates on policy and what is the best way to help people. That debate isn’t a national debate – it happens only within the Democratic party, not outside of it.
The real national debate is whether Democrats are very dangerous or aren’t they. The Republicans speak with one voice — Democrats are dangerous.
The Democrats spend their time debating whether or not Republicans are dangerous, making it absolutely clear to the voters that they have no idea whether they are or are not dangerous — look at all these smart progressives who say Republicans aren’t dangerous. Voters hear that it is POSSIBLE that Republicans are dangerous — even many Dems say that Republicans aren’t dangerous — but it DEFINITE that the Democrats are dangerous because the only people who say that the Dems aren’t dangerous are the Dems themselves.
That’s why there are troll posts on here every time Diane Ravitch makes a post where the discussion is about how dangerous Republicans are.
Republicans are determined to prevent the one thing that can defeat them. And that is their opponents speaking in one loud voice that the Republicans are dangerous. They want to make sure we “debate”whether Republicans are dangerous amongst ourselves and agree to disagree.
Has anyone ever heard the Republicans debating how dangerous the Dems are? They simply expel from the party all who express any disagreement.
We make all this effort to convince people that it is in their economic self-interest to vote for progressive candidates and the Republicans make all this effort to convince people that only the Republicans can protect their families from the DANGER posed by Democrats and progressives. Who wouldn’t rather protect their family from harm than get an extra $40 in their paycheck?
But how would that change if those voters thought it was the Republicans who were the real immediate danger to their families?
And how would that change if voters didn’t know which party was more dangerous, because they kept hearing that both parties were equally dangerous to their families?
I bet then a lot more would vote for their economic self-interest.
NYCPSP, re: “preferred orthodoxies”
I would disagree that these folks have “anger issues.” I see it more as a practiced arrogance. One that is ascendant, they just don’t want to be too closely associated with it. But you can sure as heck believe they intend to benefit from it. By claiming to be centrist in this time when the definition of centrist is meaningless, they try to claim a certain “objectivity” they are too lazy to defend or earn. That way they never have to explain or take a position. Everyone else is a “fanatic” not worthy of responding to. But for some reason, we always have to explain and justify ourselves. Not that we’re afraid to, we’re standing on solid ground made up of evidence, facts, logic, and consistency. This is the logical conclusion of both-siderism. Those who claim to be in the middle a) are not and, b) have another agenda they are afraid to enunciate in public, so sowing doubt with assured arrogance passes for gravitas for them.
GregB,
Thank you. Many very astute observations in there. Their agenda is to sow doubt about any criticism of Republicans (but never sow doubt about how dangerous dems/progressives are). In some cases isn’t even both siderism! They post inanities and present their view as gravitas and (to be fair), the inane media often is complicit.
And I do think they have another agenda.
You are correct on your first observation. In WWII they were called Fifth Columnists. Today they preen with the assurance of a David Brooks or Bret Stephens, just to cite two NYT examples.
Practiced arrogance, of the kind that William F. Buckley and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman (among other freaks) demonstrated so clearly.
Let’s be very clear about this: Given that most people in the nation are opposed to the policies that the extremists intend to put in place using the judiciary in part to do so, and given that the voters coming up are even more vehemently and widely opposed to those, if the extremist anti-democratic puppets of the oligarchs do indeed manage to seize total power (and they are well on their way to this), then THE ONLY WAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HOLD ONTO IT IS THROUGH EXTREME VIOLENCE.
That’s where this ends, folks.
Some places in the world have been there, done that.
Yes. And that is exactly why those who act as the far right’s witting or unwitting enablers on here are so determined to stop us from talking about how dangerous the Republicans are.
Remember, it is “pure hysteria” to talk about how dangerous it is until long after it is too late to do anything about it. Once democracy is ended, no doubt they would feel that our expressing concern about what Republicans are doing would no longer be “pure hysteria”. They would have no objections to us talking about the dangers posed by Republicans once it is too late to stop them. But not one minute before because then they aren’t yet dangerous!
See how fair and balanced they are?
Would have been a very good idea for others in recent memory to have such hysteria.
We are Germany in 1932.
I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed in the penultimate paragraph of this superb essay. Well said and important.
This guy is speaking at a major national Conservative conference, attended by people with a lot of clout among Conservatives, and he is given raucous applause for what he says here.
And yes, it is shocking.
Conservatives talk this way with one another in the country club bathroom, out on the links, on their yachts. Then, a great many of these same people assume a pose of moderation in public and decry the “extremists” on the left, just before they act to keep women from having control of their own bodies or black people from voting or gay and lesbian people from marrying. Or just before they authorize sending police to teargas and beat moms in yellow shirts.
I could only handle it to 4:45 and that was 4:44 too long. Don’t know how you do it. Kinda makes one lightheaded to think that someone would say this in public knowing he speaks for a substantial minority of very, very broken people.
I really recommend that you listen to it all. It’s breathtaking. This guy says the quiet and really chilling parts outloud.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ron-desantis-rolls-out-red-carpet-for-scott-yenor-sexist-boob-from-idaho
I tried again, randomly moving forward to his “treatise” on birth rate. How you get through it is a mystery to me. Loved this comment on it:
“This type of argument only comes from men who are too lazy to wash their own socks.”
I had to bail when he said, men don’t have purpose. It’s the fault of women.
Six days ago, Scott Yenor, father of 5, who is on sabbatical from Boise State University, was welcomed to Florida by Mrs. DeSantis. The Calf.-based Claremont Institute (the home of John Eastman of Jan.6 infamy) wants Yenor as part of its new activities in Florida.
Yenor went to Loyola University.
As a grad of another Loyola, I can guaran-damn-tee you nothing like that was ever taught. Oy!
When a person is not anti-woman and he/she selects a religious college it may be because it’s convenient.
Yenor is Lutheran and talks and writes like a Republican who doesn’t want equality for women. When someone like him chooses a religious school, it’s worth noting just as it is worth noting that Ilya Shapiro of the Koch network was hired by Georgetown for a top position in its law school.
IMO, the problem with men like Yenor is that they are delusional and believe that they know what God wants. Yenor praised Pope John Paul II and echoed him, “those sources of order and fulfillment -particularly the lifelong marriage of a man and a woman…”
I don’t draw conclusions about all Catholics nor Lutherans nor do I draw conclusions about all religious college students.
The last paragraphs of the essay are so good, especially given the name-calling by Republican-defending folks here. The “ALL CAPS” are my own:
“These are deeply uncomfortable questions that few are even asking, let alone attempting to answer. Journalists and good-government nonprofits shy away from it for fear of appearing biased or partisan, and Democratic establishment leaders shy away from it for fear of appearing HYSTERICAL, and because to acknowledge it plainly would require a militant commitment to defeat it.
Thus, the damage done by each decision is immediately laundered into a new normal, preventing us from seeing the escalating and compounding consequences of the Court’s decisions over time as they reshape political institutions and advantage the coalition’s members over the rest of us. The Court is always losing its legitimacy, but it’s still taboo to acknowledge that it’s truly lost.
Our liberal institutions, good government groups, and mainstream opinion-leaders have unshakable confidence in progress – that, doggone it, the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. TO THEM, EVEN MASSIVE EXISTENTIAL BLOWS TO HUMAN RIGHTS LIKE THE DOBBS DECISION DON’T RISE TO “IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, BREAK GLASS” MOMENTS. This view can only be sustained by ignoring what is in plain sight.
Here, James Baldwin still has the best advice for how to proceed: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”
Here’s the deal – – –
Republicans are afraid of teachers. THEY ARE AFRAID OF TEACHERS! They are afraid of smart people, confident and strong women, and bully anyone who is different than them. Billionaires. Blue collar. Doesn’t matter. They are afraid and have made themselves victims because a whole lot of people who didn’t have rights before 1950 got rights now!
They are afraid of teachers. Teachers are smart. They are professional. Kids listen to them and trust them. Teachers let kids think. Teachers know facts, history, and truth.
Teachers and public schools represent free thinking, free speech, figuring things out on your own, questioning authority, reading books, facing history,
The republican party is an embarrassment to democracy.
Desantis and they boys have figured that out so they are going local – school by school – teacher by teacher – fear mongering, selling “rights” to parents they already have, beating up on people who are different than them (you should hear the state legislature hearings in our red world).
And all the way back to the blog – the loudest of them are getting away with blasphemy, posting extremist manifestos as legislation, scapegoating, scare tactics, going after academia… yes… 1933
The conservative religious are afraid of women having equal status.
I wish that Diane would let more of the crazy rightwingers through because I am interested in observing the patterns. Interestingly, the person who identifies himself as George, above, claims to be far too busy to post here, unlike the single-digit-in-number crazy radicals who do.
And yet he claims to have knowledge about what happens all the time on this blog. So which is it? Is he too busy to pay attention to this blog and respond to it? Or does he monitor it all the time for some reason?
Sometimes, when a disingenuity of rightwing trolls appears here, it seems clear that they’ve all come from some online rightwing coven of ghouls, where someone has posted some bit of nastiness about Diane and a link to her blog.
At other times, one suspects that the trolls are coming from the employ of some rightwing group–one of those rightwing think tanks where thinking tanks, some lunatic rightwing advocacy group (of which there are so many), or some Greying Old Party politician or other tighty righty figure who has been held up to the light here.
I am not saying that George is any of these things, but his comments got me thinking about past commenters infuriated by what they read here.
Here’s what I would tell the rightwingers: Be careful what you wish for. If you do seize absolute power, it will be nasty, brutish, and short. The people are NOT with you and are increasingly NOT with you.
How long did that thousand-year Reich last?
Well, there you are.
One of the reason why I am so afraid of a rightwing takeover here is that the now truly extremist Republicans so well organized, and Democrats just aren’t. There is no Democratic equivalent of ALEC. There is no Democratic equivalent to the Federalist Society, vetting judicial candidates to prepare lists of super-progressive judges and justices to be rubber-stamped. And they have the propaganda advantage that they don’t care, at all, whether what they say is true (CRT is rampant in schools, lots of kids are undergowing irreversable sex assignment surgery, the last presidential election was stolen, and so on). All they are about is whether it has propaganda value. Whether it works.
There is no progressive equivalent to Turning Point USA, the national organization for young Conservatives. There aren’t progressive equivalents to the thousands of extremist right-wing private and religious schools indoctrinating kids in fundamentalism, nationalist jingoism, sexism, and homophobia.
What the pugs have going for them is that they have lots of oligarch money to throw at this stuff.
And, of course, the Democrats have to fight their own national organization, which is deadset against progressivism, and many establishment Democrats who suck as much from the corporate teat as their Repugnican mirror images do.
So, the pugs take over while the dems are squabbling among themselves, much as did the Bolsheviks in Russia.
Of course the Democrats have no equivalents to ALEC or the Federalist Society—are “disorganized” and decentralized by comparison to the oligarchy that funds the Republicans’ minority-hegemony. That’s a feature not a bug.
This is precisely what makes democracies vulnerable to authoritarian “takeover”—in quotes because the preferred modern method is incremental chipping away at democratic institutions from within, while maintaining the outer shell of democratic trappings as cover. Podhorzer describes the history of this process comprehensively.
Yes. But you do see the problem that I am getting at, right? The opposition is very well organized, despite what’s going on in the House right now.
But the Dems do have an equivalent to the Federalist Society. They have the Democratic Leadership Council. Unfortunately, the DLC is fairly well aligned with the Federalist Society. Both parties have been subject to a hostile, corporate takeover.
It is little known that Republican brains work differently than do others’ brains. Here’s the basic model:
Stimulus –> Triggers boot
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for ever. ” –O’Brien
The boot triggering, of course, is triggered by fear. Fear of women, fear of people of color, fear of change, fear of homosexuals, fear of losing their privileges, fear of taxes, fear of the new, fear of the young, fear of drag queens for crying out loud, fear of foreigners, fear of ideas. It’s basically cowardice writ large. Thus the need to clutch guns and wield murderous armies and posture about their masculinity (see, for example, -ucker Carlson, Jash Hawley, Donald “shroom parts” Trump, and Jordan Peterson.
Thus the need to clutch pearls and guns.
I was driving to work and listening to an NPR interview with a leading Republican strategist. Trump was our new president and the Republicans now had control of both the House and Senate.
The interviewer asked, “What can we expect if this administration and its alliance with Congress?”.
The strategist was jubilant and answered immediately: a rollback of 65 years worth of federally mandated mistakes (I call them “achievements”).
Looks like the Supreme Court has bigger things in mind. Regardless: moving backwards is their definition of progress.
Back to the future. Way, way back.
They should make this a national campaign slogan.
The “rollback” or continuation- White over Black, men over women, conservative Christians over all others and straight over gay.
This is an extremely important part of Podhorzer’s essay:
“Thus, the damage done by each decision is immediately laundered into a new normal, preventing us from seeing the escalating and compounding consequences of the Court’s decisions over time as they reshape political institutions and advantage the coalition’s members over the rest of us. The Court is always losing its legitimacy, but it’s still taboo to acknowledge that it’s truly lost. ”
The main propaganda effort – helped by the so-called liberal media and some unwitting or unwitting Democrats/progressives – is to belittle and de-legitimize any attempt to get Americans to see the URGENCY of the situation. They throw out terms like “hysteria” and “fanatics” to marginalize anyone who says that. The narrative is always that those folks warning that the Republicans are dangerous are NOT worth listening to — look how the liberal media and these progressives/Democrats telling you these marginalized folks are crazy?
Whereas the Republicans win by telling people that the Democrats are going to do dangerous things even when that isn’t even remotely connected to reality! They speak with one voice.
At the state of the union, Biden was brilliant in one way: when Biden said that the Republicans wanted to end Social Security and Medicare.
THAT is the type of message that works. But only if we speak with one voice. No conditions in a desperate attempt to parse every statement made by a Democrat and make sure it meets an impossible standard of “accuracy” that Republican propaganda never has to meet. Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare. Put the Republicans on the defensive instead of helping Republicans by making the case for them that “Biden wasn’t totally accurate” and citing some Republican who says they don’t support it. Because it wouldn’t be “fair” to say that about the Republicans. It might make voters think the Republican party is dangerous!
I’ve been slow reading and memorizing this essay for a few days now. Finally finished. Wish I had time to select some choice quotes over which to fawn. I’ll just say this, WWII didn’t destroy the Nazis, and the U.S. Civil War did not destroy the Confederacy. In 1619, the New World was born in sin. Right our wrongs? Come on. We haven’t even been to confession.