Thank you for writing down what I also observed was missing from Pres. Biden's SOTU.
In your previous article regarding fake populism and the IRS, you noted that "the idea (on the left) that the political conflict is ultimately about better arguments is flawed."
(And your observation therein that it is impossible to communicate with lie-infected Magats is, once again, perfectly illustrated in Robert Carmichael's vulgar "comment" below.) As Hannah Arendt noted, in describing the conflict between democracy & authoritarianism, "“Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute.”
I wonder if we need better terminology to discuss the rift (the gap, the breach) between those who care about the validity/legitimacy of facts and those who don't. President Biden's SOTU was a direct appeal to the former.
Magats and their thought leaders in rw media have been described as "shameless" because of their willingness to hurl lies and embrace lies. But I think it goes deeper than that. They don't just believe the lies, they believe that any statement, any act, any decision, by any member of their party and media is valid/legitimate simply because it emanates from their clan.
In other words, everything that the former guy did and said was "perfect," not because he was a good guy but because he was their guy. Every counter-factual insult hurled at Democrats is true because their person said it. The Big Lie is true simply because the Fox talking heads and so many other members of their clan said it was.
But it's not just the facts that are in dispute, it's the principles that define our nation and society that are in dispute.
This tribal mentality, this core belief that facts, civil discourse, and the Golden Rule are for losers, is frightening. There must be agreement on the set of principles at the core of democracy in order for democracy to thrive. And as you note, the widening chasm needs to be addressed. But how?
Do your farts smell better when you have your nose planter firmly inside you precious academically bubble-protected asshole? Do those ephemeral dung particle encased wispy hairs tickle your delicate nostrils? How about it my egalitarian comrade?
I think you are asking the right question in the penultimate paragraph, so I'd like to add something in that regard: It would be shortsighted to assume that Democrats (and liberals in general) fully understand what is at stake when their actions, political priorities, and now also rhetoric don't support that. In my reading of history, the Democratic Party's support for the expansion of civil and voting rights in the 60s was in a large part due to a willingness to expand American capitalism and the mainstreaming of conservative, liberal, and even radical strands of the CRM into the Democratic establishment was a way to accomplish this; the expansion of the voter base and thus consolidation of power were of course important consequences of this process.
While the issue at stake today is clearly whether or not the U.S. will continue to exist as a (flawed) democracy, the two major parties don't map onto the spectrum of the struggle over democracy as cleanly as it sometimes seems in your writing. To put it differently, I don't think the Democratic Party and American liberalism-at-large are credible advocates for or representatives of "egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy." This struggle has to take place in popular movements, as it has in the past; and Biden's speech just reiterated this for me.
I think the speech was written for two audiences, the "undecided" voter and one select audience, the handful of remaining moderate Republicans. To pass bills in the house needs a few Republican cross-overs. Biden's job is to provide a base of opinion which encourages them to vote on Biden's programs to strengthen working class security.
Well said! One thing, though, is that using the benign term, “conservatives” to describe a party that has wholly embraced authoritarian extremism contributes to the normalization of their cause. True “conservatism” is dead, if it ever existed at all. Biden tried to befuddle the right wing media machine & appealed to the working class who have abandoned the Democrats en masse in favor of the party who wants them to wallow in grievances. Like you, I doubt it will work to move lots of them to the causes of the Democratic Party. It may help peel off a percentage or two though in the margins & that’s how elections are won. The GOP has stopped trying to expand their base & have chosen a base turnout strategy instead. Biden tried to do both with his SOTU speech while he highlighted the hypocrisy and buffoonery of the GOP.
Prof. Zimmer:
Thank you for writing down what I also observed was missing from Pres. Biden's SOTU.
In your previous article regarding fake populism and the IRS, you noted that "the idea (on the left) that the political conflict is ultimately about better arguments is flawed."
(And your observation therein that it is impossible to communicate with lie-infected Magats is, once again, perfectly illustrated in Robert Carmichael's vulgar "comment" below.) As Hannah Arendt noted, in describing the conflict between democracy & authoritarianism, "“Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute.”
I wonder if we need better terminology to discuss the rift (the gap, the breach) between those who care about the validity/legitimacy of facts and those who don't. President Biden's SOTU was a direct appeal to the former.
Magats and their thought leaders in rw media have been described as "shameless" because of their willingness to hurl lies and embrace lies. But I think it goes deeper than that. They don't just believe the lies, they believe that any statement, any act, any decision, by any member of their party and media is valid/legitimate simply because it emanates from their clan.
In other words, everything that the former guy did and said was "perfect," not because he was a good guy but because he was their guy. Every counter-factual insult hurled at Democrats is true because their person said it. The Big Lie is true simply because the Fox talking heads and so many other members of their clan said it was.
But it's not just the facts that are in dispute, it's the principles that define our nation and society that are in dispute.
This tribal mentality, this core belief that facts, civil discourse, and the Golden Rule are for losers, is frightening. There must be agreement on the set of principles at the core of democracy in order for democracy to thrive. And as you note, the widening chasm needs to be addressed. But how?
Do your farts smell better when you have your nose planter firmly inside you precious academically bubble-protected asshole? Do those ephemeral dung particle encased wispy hairs tickle your delicate nostrils? How about it my egalitarian comrade?
Thomas! Your work is always such a pleasure to read
I think you are asking the right question in the penultimate paragraph, so I'd like to add something in that regard: It would be shortsighted to assume that Democrats (and liberals in general) fully understand what is at stake when their actions, political priorities, and now also rhetoric don't support that. In my reading of history, the Democratic Party's support for the expansion of civil and voting rights in the 60s was in a large part due to a willingness to expand American capitalism and the mainstreaming of conservative, liberal, and even radical strands of the CRM into the Democratic establishment was a way to accomplish this; the expansion of the voter base and thus consolidation of power were of course important consequences of this process.
While the issue at stake today is clearly whether or not the U.S. will continue to exist as a (flawed) democracy, the two major parties don't map onto the spectrum of the struggle over democracy as cleanly as it sometimes seems in your writing. To put it differently, I don't think the Democratic Party and American liberalism-at-large are credible advocates for or representatives of "egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy." This struggle has to take place in popular movements, as it has in the past; and Biden's speech just reiterated this for me.
I think the speech was written for two audiences, the "undecided" voter and one select audience, the handful of remaining moderate Republicans. To pass bills in the house needs a few Republican cross-overs. Biden's job is to provide a base of opinion which encourages them to vote on Biden's programs to strengthen working class security.
“‘We just have to remember who we are,’ Joe Biden concluded. But that will not be good enough.”
Yes. Thank you for articulating this. Things do not look good.
Well said! One thing, though, is that using the benign term, “conservatives” to describe a party that has wholly embraced authoritarian extremism contributes to the normalization of their cause. True “conservatism” is dead, if it ever existed at all. Biden tried to befuddle the right wing media machine & appealed to the working class who have abandoned the Democrats en masse in favor of the party who wants them to wallow in grievances. Like you, I doubt it will work to move lots of them to the causes of the Democratic Party. It may help peel off a percentage or two though in the margins & that’s how elections are won. The GOP has stopped trying to expand their base & have chosen a base turnout strategy instead. Biden tried to do both with his SOTU speech while he highlighted the hypocrisy and buffoonery of the GOP.