I appreciate that you mention the rising tide of Catholic forces. For far too long, we've seen the rise of the religious radicals as the doings of Protestant fundamentalists. If we in the U.S. do end up in a theocracy of some sort, it is the Catholic Church that has the structures and experience in place to bring about a theocracy and the Supreme Court is now loaded with more radical Catholics. Protestants in the U.S. are too divided. But I do see Protestant Christian wealthy elites as being a part of the same anti-democracy project that they will pass off as "Christian (capitalistic) democracy." I recommend the book The Power Worshippers by Katherine Stewart. She really deep dives into what's up with the Religious "Right" and their long game.
As a Catholic, I could not disagree more with people like Vermeule, Barr, and their ilk. I appreciate our democratic government and don’t want to see it destroyed. Unfortunately, they seem to be tied at the hip with the bishops who have the upper hand in the USCCB, and they have big funders behind them.
I know so many good, social justice Catholics. My heart aches for them. I'm proud of them, too, as many continue on doing good works for anti-poverty, anti-racism organizations. Like you, they are not on team Barr et al.
I've chuckled at the end of at least two of these three pieces so far in this series, when you've apologized for the length and said you'll be writing more in another post to follow. These pieces are long, but in a good way. Keep 'em coming! You're very much onto something. Maybe what the length and number of these pieces is telling you is that you need to write a book :-)
Hi Prof. Zimmer. Great piece. I also listened to the excellent "Is this Democracy" podcast from last Friday about "Reactionary Centrism" and could not agree more.` A couple of points;
1. I don't think most policies are necessarily "zero-sum" and portraying them that way can be unnecessarily harmful politically. Talking about "taxpayer money" is a zero-sum frame, implying that there is a finite amount of money and if some of it is going to help poor non-white people, white people will get less. This "free stuff" frame has put Republicans in office since before Reagan (though he perfected it). Providing resources to the poor need not come at the expense of the middle and upper classes. If there are sufficient resources available, benefits can accrue to all income and demographic groups. The zero-sum/taxpayer money frame, divides groups unnecessarily. Even reparations will not necessarily raise taxes on whites or middle/upper classes. Even with affirmative action, Democrats should frame it as expanding opportunity, not keeping down one group at the expense of another.
2. On gerrymandering, even if it's "wrong" Democrats must do it until the entire system is reformed. Not balancing gerrymandered R states with D counterparts enables the R majorities elected by gerrymandering to perpetuate the inequity. The cynicism of this was laid bare by Roberts' decision in the case approving political gerrymandering. He acknowledged the results of state legislatures gerrymandering Congressional districts may be unfair, but the remedy, he wrote, lies in voting out those legislatures. Yet the legislatures themselves are gerrymandering and in many cases impossible to vote out. Until there is a Supreme Court or Congress to impose fairness, Democrats must use whatever tools to balance the scales. We saw in NY how the NY Courts' rejection of NY Dems attempt to redress the imbalance in other states led to loss of the House. Loss of the House kills any chance of anti-gerrymandering legislation (or other Voting rights measures).
Btw -- my daughter is a graduating senior at Georgetown majoring in French and Government, and has not taken any course with you. Sadly, I became acquainted with your work only after she confirmed her courses for the Spring semester, so I couldn't lobby for her to take your class.
My home state of Ohio is a prime example of what happens when Republicans gerrymander themselves into power. The General Assembly refuses to appoint the nonpartisan redistricting committee we voters voted for by referendum, we have fools like Gym Jordan representing us in Congress, the General Assembly is approving bills to make it more difficult to vote, and our Secretary of State wants to require 60% of voters to approve referenda. We also have a Supreme Court that is now 6 Republicans to 1 Democrat, and one of the Republican justices is the governor’s son and won’t recuse himself from cases involving his father.
Hey Peter, cool to hear your daughter is at Georgetown - I hope she'll have a wonderful final semester!
Just quickly on the zero-sum argument: Notice that I wasn't employing what you call the "taxpayer money" framework at all, wasn't even referring to specific policies. I was referring to status - a person's status/position in society in relation to everybody else. And that, unfortunately, is very much a zero-sum game. If you are a white Christian man, then your status in this society has always been elevated compared to everyone who happened to not be a white Christian man - you have traditionally been awarded a certain status advantage in all spheres of life: in politics, in the workplace, in the family, in the public square. The project of creating a truly egalitarian multiracial, pluralistic democracy is, ultimately, about taking away that status advantage, or privilege, for white Christian men. And there is just no way around it: This loss of status privilege means that white Christian men would be relatively worse off than before. Again, I am open to the argument that it might be politically useful to frame the discussion differently. But analytically, I don't think it makes sense to deny this very real conflict over status.
Thanks for the reply. On this point: "This loss of status privilege means that white Christian men would be relatively worse off than before." I wonder about this. Would an egalitarian society necessarily make them worse than before? Or would it mean the other groups would not have the disadvantages they had before relative to white men? How many policies that would help minorities and women would actually hurt white men? Affirmative action is one -- but even with that, how much whites are hurt depends on the other opportunities available. A white kid may not get into Harvard because a similarly qualified BIPOC person gets his space. But he has a good chance at another Ivy or may be even a very fine school like, let's say . . Georgetown?
Would reparations hurt white men? That's where the finite "taxpayer money" frame comes in. I don't accept that funds to pay reparations would have to come from other programs.
Another point is whether policies enacted by white men (wealthy white men in particular) because of their status and privilege (i.e., Republicans), have actually harmed a majority of white men, and policies enacted by a multi-racial coalition (i.e., Democrats) have improved (and would improve more) the lives of less well off white men, along with others. Aren't poor-middle class whites better off economically because of, e.g., the ACA, signed by a black President?
So the main area of loss by whites in an egalitarian US would primarily be in non-material status-privilege. And that gets to the perverse appeal of the Republicans to whites. The "culture war" issues are mostly stand-ins for preserving white male rule -- guns, abortion and birth control, gay/trans panic, crime. But those elected on these issues kill programs that will materially benefit white voters. As you said on Friday's program, they are voting in their "interest" -- it's just that they are prioritizing their non-economic interest. Having AR-15s is more important to them than not living paycheck to paycheck or having a comfortable retirement. That's why they went nuts over the essential correctness of Obama's "bitter/cling" remark.
So I agree, analytically, egalitarian policies threaten white status and privilege. And political scientists and historians should look at it that way. But these policies likely improve white well-being.
And I would go farther than saying it's politically useful to avoid framing the issue as loss of status and privilege. It's essential to do that. The best way to attract white men to vote Democratic is to show them how the very wealthy have used race (and sex and gender) to divide us, enabling plutocratic policies. I highly recommend the stores and podcast linked below featuring the work of Ian Haney López, Heather McGee and Anat Shenker-Osario. López writes:
"When we come together to reject racism as a weapon of the reactionary rich, we can make sure that the government works for all of us, of every race and color."
My sense is that the reactionary right’s primary motivation is to protect the wealth, power of corporate elites. They use white workers for votes, but have no agenda to improve their lives. It is not politically viable to campaign on protecting wealthy elites, much better to mobilize on the basis of white Christian nationalism, the “real” Americans. Their virulent opposition to Democrats, who they consider synonymous with the “left” also allows them to attract conservative minorities who fail to grasp the larger picture. Their anti democratic project may well succeed, unless Democrats can actually put forward an economic and social agenda that unites workers and the middle class, across racial, ethnic lines, and exposes, isolates the handful of uber wealthy elitists who will protect their privileges at all costs, even if it takes fascism to do it.
This helped my understand how Dennis Prager––a pseudo reactionary intellectual and a huge fan of Claremont––has become so radicalized over the last six or seven years. He never used to call the left evil. Now it's almost all he says. He think he was always this radical but the intellectuals you site have given him permission to let his radical self run wild. I'm a huge fan of your work Mr. Zimmer. I just downloaded the two episodes of the Know Your Enemy podcast.
The 'conservative' mission is global. It is found in ideas advocated by people like LePen, Orban, Meloni, LaFarge, and of course, Putin. It is a reactionary black hole and conservatism is at the event horizon. It has nowhere else to go but into the abyss - its economic ideas have all failed, its social ideas repudiated by majorities, its epistemology reduced to set of hysterical absurdities. And yet, its power remains. It is reacting viscerally, like a wounded animal. And the danger lies in centuries of imposed inequalities and captured governments that continue to power the mission. Professor Zimmer 3rd instalment is a must read for anyone who believes in democratic pluralism. It may be focused on mobilization of the right in America, but those forces are mobilizing everywhere where white privilege, colonial histories, and crony capital have ruled.
I appreciate that you mention the rising tide of Catholic forces. For far too long, we've seen the rise of the religious radicals as the doings of Protestant fundamentalists. If we in the U.S. do end up in a theocracy of some sort, it is the Catholic Church that has the structures and experience in place to bring about a theocracy and the Supreme Court is now loaded with more radical Catholics. Protestants in the U.S. are too divided. But I do see Protestant Christian wealthy elites as being a part of the same anti-democracy project that they will pass off as "Christian (capitalistic) democracy." I recommend the book The Power Worshippers by Katherine Stewart. She really deep dives into what's up with the Religious "Right" and their long game.
As a Catholic, I could not disagree more with people like Vermeule, Barr, and their ilk. I appreciate our democratic government and don’t want to see it destroyed. Unfortunately, they seem to be tied at the hip with the bishops who have the upper hand in the USCCB, and they have big funders behind them.
I know so many good, social justice Catholics. My heart aches for them. I'm proud of them, too, as many continue on doing good works for anti-poverty, anti-racism organizations. Like you, they are not on team Barr et al.
Thank you, Dr Zimmer. Looking forward to Part IV.
Not too long for me! Excellent work
I've chuckled at the end of at least two of these three pieces so far in this series, when you've apologized for the length and said you'll be writing more in another post to follow. These pieces are long, but in a good way. Keep 'em coming! You're very much onto something. Maybe what the length and number of these pieces is telling you is that you need to write a book :-)
Ha! At least I’ve made the transition from Twitter threads to long-form newsletter essays - maybe that trajectory will someday lead to a book… lol.
Hi Prof. Zimmer. Great piece. I also listened to the excellent "Is this Democracy" podcast from last Friday about "Reactionary Centrism" and could not agree more.` A couple of points;
1. I don't think most policies are necessarily "zero-sum" and portraying them that way can be unnecessarily harmful politically. Talking about "taxpayer money" is a zero-sum frame, implying that there is a finite amount of money and if some of it is going to help poor non-white people, white people will get less. This "free stuff" frame has put Republicans in office since before Reagan (though he perfected it). Providing resources to the poor need not come at the expense of the middle and upper classes. If there are sufficient resources available, benefits can accrue to all income and demographic groups. The zero-sum/taxpayer money frame, divides groups unnecessarily. Even reparations will not necessarily raise taxes on whites or middle/upper classes. Even with affirmative action, Democrats should frame it as expanding opportunity, not keeping down one group at the expense of another.
2. On gerrymandering, even if it's "wrong" Democrats must do it until the entire system is reformed. Not balancing gerrymandered R states with D counterparts enables the R majorities elected by gerrymandering to perpetuate the inequity. The cynicism of this was laid bare by Roberts' decision in the case approving political gerrymandering. He acknowledged the results of state legislatures gerrymandering Congressional districts may be unfair, but the remedy, he wrote, lies in voting out those legislatures. Yet the legislatures themselves are gerrymandering and in many cases impossible to vote out. Until there is a Supreme Court or Congress to impose fairness, Democrats must use whatever tools to balance the scales. We saw in NY how the NY Courts' rejection of NY Dems attempt to redress the imbalance in other states led to loss of the House. Loss of the House kills any chance of anti-gerrymandering legislation (or other Voting rights measures).
Btw -- my daughter is a graduating senior at Georgetown majoring in French and Government, and has not taken any course with you. Sadly, I became acquainted with your work only after she confirmed her courses for the Spring semester, so I couldn't lobby for her to take your class.
My home state of Ohio is a prime example of what happens when Republicans gerrymander themselves into power. The General Assembly refuses to appoint the nonpartisan redistricting committee we voters voted for by referendum, we have fools like Gym Jordan representing us in Congress, the General Assembly is approving bills to make it more difficult to vote, and our Secretary of State wants to require 60% of voters to approve referenda. We also have a Supreme Court that is now 6 Republicans to 1 Democrat, and one of the Republican justices is the governor’s son and won’t recuse himself from cases involving his father.
Hey Peter, cool to hear your daughter is at Georgetown - I hope she'll have a wonderful final semester!
Just quickly on the zero-sum argument: Notice that I wasn't employing what you call the "taxpayer money" framework at all, wasn't even referring to specific policies. I was referring to status - a person's status/position in society in relation to everybody else. And that, unfortunately, is very much a zero-sum game. If you are a white Christian man, then your status in this society has always been elevated compared to everyone who happened to not be a white Christian man - you have traditionally been awarded a certain status advantage in all spheres of life: in politics, in the workplace, in the family, in the public square. The project of creating a truly egalitarian multiracial, pluralistic democracy is, ultimately, about taking away that status advantage, or privilege, for white Christian men. And there is just no way around it: This loss of status privilege means that white Christian men would be relatively worse off than before. Again, I am open to the argument that it might be politically useful to frame the discussion differently. But analytically, I don't think it makes sense to deny this very real conflict over status.
Thanks for the reply. On this point: "This loss of status privilege means that white Christian men would be relatively worse off than before." I wonder about this. Would an egalitarian society necessarily make them worse than before? Or would it mean the other groups would not have the disadvantages they had before relative to white men? How many policies that would help minorities and women would actually hurt white men? Affirmative action is one -- but even with that, how much whites are hurt depends on the other opportunities available. A white kid may not get into Harvard because a similarly qualified BIPOC person gets his space. But he has a good chance at another Ivy or may be even a very fine school like, let's say . . Georgetown?
Would reparations hurt white men? That's where the finite "taxpayer money" frame comes in. I don't accept that funds to pay reparations would have to come from other programs.
Another point is whether policies enacted by white men (wealthy white men in particular) because of their status and privilege (i.e., Republicans), have actually harmed a majority of white men, and policies enacted by a multi-racial coalition (i.e., Democrats) have improved (and would improve more) the lives of less well off white men, along with others. Aren't poor-middle class whites better off economically because of, e.g., the ACA, signed by a black President?
So the main area of loss by whites in an egalitarian US would primarily be in non-material status-privilege. And that gets to the perverse appeal of the Republicans to whites. The "culture war" issues are mostly stand-ins for preserving white male rule -- guns, abortion and birth control, gay/trans panic, crime. But those elected on these issues kill programs that will materially benefit white voters. As you said on Friday's program, they are voting in their "interest" -- it's just that they are prioritizing their non-economic interest. Having AR-15s is more important to them than not living paycheck to paycheck or having a comfortable retirement. That's why they went nuts over the essential correctness of Obama's "bitter/cling" remark.
So I agree, analytically, egalitarian policies threaten white status and privilege. And political scientists and historians should look at it that way. But these policies likely improve white well-being.
And I would go farther than saying it's politically useful to avoid framing the issue as loss of status and privilege. It's essential to do that. The best way to attract white men to vote Democratic is to show them how the very wealthy have used race (and sex and gender) to divide us, enabling plutocratic policies. I highly recommend the stores and podcast linked below featuring the work of Ian Haney López, Heather McGee and Anat Shenker-Osario. López writes:
"When we come together to reject racism as a weapon of the reactionary rich, we can make sure that the government works for all of us, of every race and color."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/2/15/1435717/-Can-Democrats-talk-about-race-in-a-way-that-wins-back-the-white-non-college-vote
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/2/15/2074409/-All-about-winning-elections-Latino-white-and-Black-voters-respond-best-to-one-type-of-messaging
Thanks! I want to address your point about loss of privilege, etc. But first,
I write on the Daily Kos under the pseudonym "Bethesda 1971." I just posted this story "It's Christmas Eve. Won't you help the politically homeless?" (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/24/2143648/-It-s-Christmas-Eve-Won-t-you-help-the-politically-homeless-sn)
I think you'll enjoy it, not least because it quotes and references your favorite "centrist" Damon Linker.
My sense is that the reactionary right’s primary motivation is to protect the wealth, power of corporate elites. They use white workers for votes, but have no agenda to improve their lives. It is not politically viable to campaign on protecting wealthy elites, much better to mobilize on the basis of white Christian nationalism, the “real” Americans. Their virulent opposition to Democrats, who they consider synonymous with the “left” also allows them to attract conservative minorities who fail to grasp the larger picture. Their anti democratic project may well succeed, unless Democrats can actually put forward an economic and social agenda that unites workers and the middle class, across racial, ethnic lines, and exposes, isolates the handful of uber wealthy elitists who will protect their privileges at all costs, even if it takes fascism to do it.
I wish more people would clue in to the power and influence and determination of Christian nationalists in the U.S. in this way.
This helped my understand how Dennis Prager––a pseudo reactionary intellectual and a huge fan of Claremont––has become so radicalized over the last six or seven years. He never used to call the left evil. Now it's almost all he says. He think he was always this radical but the intellectuals you site have given him permission to let his radical self run wild. I'm a huge fan of your work Mr. Zimmer. I just downloaded the two episodes of the Know Your Enemy podcast.
The 'conservative' mission is global. It is found in ideas advocated by people like LePen, Orban, Meloni, LaFarge, and of course, Putin. It is a reactionary black hole and conservatism is at the event horizon. It has nowhere else to go but into the abyss - its economic ideas have all failed, its social ideas repudiated by majorities, its epistemology reduced to set of hysterical absurdities. And yet, its power remains. It is reacting viscerally, like a wounded animal. And the danger lies in centuries of imposed inequalities and captured governments that continue to power the mission. Professor Zimmer 3rd instalment is a must read for anyone who believes in democratic pluralism. It may be focused on mobilization of the right in America, but those forces are mobilizing everywhere where white privilege, colonial histories, and crony capital have ruled.