I am a retired nurse practitioner, a writer, and a progressive. I think most liberals know the radical right is about white, cisgender, straight, mostly rich, christian males keeping the gold and making the rules. What I was hoping to learn in your piece is why so few progressives are willing to use as much force to win the "form of nationalism based on an egalitarian vision that demanded a truly democratic order." Why do we capitulate to capitalistic corporate elitists?
Another question/observation: Your brief account here of the contest between two incompatible ideas of the American nation (egalitarian vs. White Christian Patriarchy (WCP)) has me thinking that, including the Civil War, just about every struggle for more egalitarian goals, like civil and voting rights, including rights of successive waves of unwelcome immigrants, has been successfully absorbed into the economy and society in such ways as to strengthen and reinforce the preeminence of WCP — until recently: when all the stops were pulled out, starting with Reaganomics, to gain unrivaled American domination over the Globalization of trade and finance.
Is it possible that this is where the demands of neo-liberal Globalism finally subjected the white working and middle class to the kinds of super-structural forces that force masses of people, communities, and even whole regions, into financial ruin and/or perpetual marginalization? This was decades of wealth transfers up to the privileged elites along with massive jobs transfers to cheaper overseas labor markets, with the 2008 banking crisis dealing the perhaps final blow in eviscerating the livelihoods and lives of middle America.
In these circumstances, egalitarianism and especially the individualistic, and literally intimately WCP-challenging egalitarian demands of a very privileged college-educated elite, became intolerable to a vast segment of the working/middle class now unable to secure the basic fruits of liberty: Decent jobs, political agency, and dignity.
So, follow-up question: What do you think of the Biden Administration’s focus on pivoting American public policy away from the forty years of Reagan “Trickle-Down” economics that has been ruinous to the middle and working class, and towards middle-class focused “Bottom-up and Middle-out Economics,” pushing through legislation that directs hundreds of billions of dollars into the “heartland?” Does this have the potential to bring at least some significant part of the MAGA-adjacent crowd back from the bring and to put the Democratic Party into a better position to make egalitarianism great again?
This is so interesting and I have so many questions! Agree that there have been two incompatible currents in American history. Egalitarian versus White Christian Patriarchal (WCP). One question: you skip over the Civil War. How did it come to be seen in the North as a fight to abolish slavery and, thereby, presumably, win a big bloody battle for egalitarianism? And was it a win for egalitarianism or was the win for egalitarianism a proxy for a win by northern industrialists in the battle for domination of industrial “wage-slavery” capitalism over actual slave-capitalism? Did Lincoln’s leadership amount to convincing a lot of “suckers” as Trump would call them, to win the war for their emerging wage-slave masters?
Thomas, I'm glad to hear that you're thinking about writing a book. Your comment about how autocrats like Orban glorify the past of their countries leads me to this suggestion: we see how these same forces here in the US are trying to prevent critical examinations of US history. This battle line between a multiracial democracy and those who want to maintain traditional hierarchies of what history can be taught might be a chapter in and of itself.
Re feedback, I would suggest that you could do more to demonstrate or substantiate the racial animus on the right. Right now, it is merely imputed or assumed. Many audiences will nod along with that, no doubt, but the argument will have more force if you can ground that piece -- which is essential -- incontrovertibly in facts (or you could acknowledge that it is a hypothesis).
Dr. Zimmer, I find myself in agreement with what you have stated, but two other things strike me as relevant and wonder abut your take on them. First Dr. Pinketty's book on Capitalism in the 21st Century stated that after WWII major concentrations of wealth largely disappeared. The struggle to re-concentrate wealth got a big boost in the US with Reagan's tax overhaul, and halving of business and top end personal taxes. I doubt that the reactionaries would be anywhere nearly as well funded without those tax changes and the subsequently increased concentrations of wealth.
Second is what I call the conservation of fear. Having lived through the 1950's, 60's and 70's I saw first hand how afraid we were of the 'Godless Communists'; every election and every policy was about stopping the red menace. With the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, that fear was transferred to 'Those People' stealing from us, as you noted. We had and opportunity to be less fearful, but we didn't take it. This was largely orchestrated by the same conservative leaders who lead the better dead than red cadres of the 1950's. We traded the communist under our beds for those people sleeping in our beds.
I agree with one corollary. There is nothing truly Christian about white male supremacy. Christianity is currently used, as it has been for the most part historically, as a falsely pious mask for prejudice and white male dominance, namely as a perversion of the teachings of Christ.
Thank you. As more equality has been embraces, yes there has been greater backlash for white, cis, wealthy men who have used “christianity” to control others and make them believe that they are of lesser value and their “glory” comes from serving the upper echelon of this hierarchy. I am a white (although my DNA heritage is European, African, Asian, Cherokee, Potawatomi, and Neanderthal) woman who has grown up under JaneCrow in the US. This view that I am of lesser value than any man has been reinforced by all religions that I know of, by our laws, and our culture. Even when abolitionists and suffragettes worked together for voting rights, in the end woman’s rights were deemed of less value and it was decided it was better to at least get the vote for black men. Pat Roberson has just died. He was consulted by many presidents and his grift was to use christianity to show all but white cis wealthy men as often downright abominations. He supported Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, all televangelist who bilked millions of dollars out of people who thought they were supporting the Lord, and would be blessed with abundance if they just gave money to them. I recently watched God Forbid on hula depicting the deceitful abusive world of Jerry Falwell Jr. and his college . Another “Christian” grift indoctrinating through abuse worldwide the value or authoritarian male rule. I also just watched Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets on Prime. This shows Bill Gothard, a predatory megalomaniac who has also used “Christian” as a way to control people and make a lot of money using an authoritarian model. I don’t know of any religion that does not use paternalist patriarchal paradigms that are hierarchical and authoritarian. We often think of these as benign, beneficial, providing comfort and strength, but in there totality do they? or do they support the view that women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, the disabled, the elderly, the poor are of lesser value? I for one will be glad when Yahweh goes the way of Zeus,,and we recognize that we live on a miraculous, and rare planet that supports LIFE. Why don’t we value all that nurtures and supports LIFE with all of its symbiotic interconnected relationships that all are important and have value?
Professor Zimmer, you’re spot on. The “right” absolutely freaked out when Obama was elected, TWICE. They had no choice as they saw it but to tip their hand. What puzzles me is why ~30M Americans accept it!
There are a couple elements missing, in my opinion. Money and the role of a diluted media. Our system is completely corrupted by money. Our politicians now all work for large donors and supers PACs. Voters really don’t matter which is why republicans continue to make it harder to vote. Additionally, the media has lost its way. With few exceptions they go for the money, not the deep investigative stories.
We’re devolving as a society as long as we allow the current situation to go unchanged.
Good stuff, Thomas. Very clarifying. You might need to take a moment to explain why women and minorities sometimes support the GOP. My take is that these folks also have a kind of nostalgia for the old days and the old ways. And the GOP loves having their support so they get rewarded by the GOP in a kind of weird affirmative action plan that helps make the case to their critics that they aren't as racist and patriarchal as the Democrats claim. Keep up the great work.
You forget that women and minorities are physically, financially, and legally shackled. Nothing to do with nostalgia for when rape and lynching were allowed.
I'd say you miss one part of democracies in EU's that hugely differs from US and should therefore be mentioned: The voting mechanism in EU countries doesn't have a tendency to a dualism of parties. Hence they are more diverse and parties with even a one-digit share of votes could end up having Government responsibilities by building coalitions. Of course there are also downsides to this approach.
Thanks for your interesting draft, gladly I comply with your request for comments. I am not sure whether "multiracial" is the best choice to describe processes of democratization; "multiracial" depends on "race" and "race" is too much of a construction to be a good, reliable descriptor. Better alternatives to "multiracial" could be "inclusive" or "related to multiple forms of identities", where you could describe identity production easier than "race" construction, and inclusivity easier than multiple "races".
To my mind, your draft essay overlooks the role of the groups that have been the focus, and presumed beneficiaries, of the civil rights movement(s) since the 1950’s & 60’s. For that matter, also the role of enfranchising women about a century ago; central if only because some on the right hold female voters responsible for the moves to expand civil protections to others over the past six or so decades. Without considering those groups, to me, the draft itself seems almost patriarchal. And I say that as a white, cis male & ardent admirer of your online writing & podcasts.
I agree completely with your premise and I like the way you've presented it. Although you've repeatedly mentioned the hierarchy of white, cis, Christian men in the US, are you going to dive further into these components? Not all white, cis, Christian men are in control in the US but most support such as system, either directly or indirectly. Do they come together because they're white, cis, Christian or male, or is it this specific combination that works to seize power and refuse to relinquish it? There's also the obvious hypocrisy of these so-called "Christian" values and the greed and grift of Trump. There doesn't seem to be any real beliefs and policies among Republicans, only the need to control and keep power, but they proselytize constantly. And how do you explain the women and people of color who hop on the Republican bandwagon. I look forward to reading your work on this issue.
I am a retired nurse practitioner, a writer, and a progressive. I think most liberals know the radical right is about white, cisgender, straight, mostly rich, christian males keeping the gold and making the rules. What I was hoping to learn in your piece is why so few progressives are willing to use as much force to win the "form of nationalism based on an egalitarian vision that demanded a truly democratic order." Why do we capitulate to capitalistic corporate elitists?
To summarize the right into slogans/dog whistles:
MAGA Make America Great Again
MWAGA Make White America Great Again
MWAMGA Make White American Men Great Again
Another question/observation: Your brief account here of the contest between two incompatible ideas of the American nation (egalitarian vs. White Christian Patriarchy (WCP)) has me thinking that, including the Civil War, just about every struggle for more egalitarian goals, like civil and voting rights, including rights of successive waves of unwelcome immigrants, has been successfully absorbed into the economy and society in such ways as to strengthen and reinforce the preeminence of WCP — until recently: when all the stops were pulled out, starting with Reaganomics, to gain unrivaled American domination over the Globalization of trade and finance.
Is it possible that this is where the demands of neo-liberal Globalism finally subjected the white working and middle class to the kinds of super-structural forces that force masses of people, communities, and even whole regions, into financial ruin and/or perpetual marginalization? This was decades of wealth transfers up to the privileged elites along with massive jobs transfers to cheaper overseas labor markets, with the 2008 banking crisis dealing the perhaps final blow in eviscerating the livelihoods and lives of middle America.
In these circumstances, egalitarianism and especially the individualistic, and literally intimately WCP-challenging egalitarian demands of a very privileged college-educated elite, became intolerable to a vast segment of the working/middle class now unable to secure the basic fruits of liberty: Decent jobs, political agency, and dignity.
So, follow-up question: What do you think of the Biden Administration’s focus on pivoting American public policy away from the forty years of Reagan “Trickle-Down” economics that has been ruinous to the middle and working class, and towards middle-class focused “Bottom-up and Middle-out Economics,” pushing through legislation that directs hundreds of billions of dollars into the “heartland?” Does this have the potential to bring at least some significant part of the MAGA-adjacent crowd back from the bring and to put the Democratic Party into a better position to make egalitarianism great again?
This is so interesting and I have so many questions! Agree that there have been two incompatible currents in American history. Egalitarian versus White Christian Patriarchal (WCP). One question: you skip over the Civil War. How did it come to be seen in the North as a fight to abolish slavery and, thereby, presumably, win a big bloody battle for egalitarianism? And was it a win for egalitarianism or was the win for egalitarianism a proxy for a win by northern industrialists in the battle for domination of industrial “wage-slavery” capitalism over actual slave-capitalism? Did Lincoln’s leadership amount to convincing a lot of “suckers” as Trump would call them, to win the war for their emerging wage-slave masters?
Thomas, I'm glad to hear that you're thinking about writing a book. Your comment about how autocrats like Orban glorify the past of their countries leads me to this suggestion: we see how these same forces here in the US are trying to prevent critical examinations of US history. This battle line between a multiracial democracy and those who want to maintain traditional hierarchies of what history can be taught might be a chapter in and of itself.
Re feedback, I would suggest that you could do more to demonstrate or substantiate the racial animus on the right. Right now, it is merely imputed or assumed. Many audiences will nod along with that, no doubt, but the argument will have more force if you can ground that piece -- which is essential -- incontrovertibly in facts (or you could acknowledge that it is a hypothesis).
Dr. Zimmer, I find myself in agreement with what you have stated, but two other things strike me as relevant and wonder abut your take on them. First Dr. Pinketty's book on Capitalism in the 21st Century stated that after WWII major concentrations of wealth largely disappeared. The struggle to re-concentrate wealth got a big boost in the US with Reagan's tax overhaul, and halving of business and top end personal taxes. I doubt that the reactionaries would be anywhere nearly as well funded without those tax changes and the subsequently increased concentrations of wealth.
Second is what I call the conservation of fear. Having lived through the 1950's, 60's and 70's I saw first hand how afraid we were of the 'Godless Communists'; every election and every policy was about stopping the red menace. With the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, that fear was transferred to 'Those People' stealing from us, as you noted. We had and opportunity to be less fearful, but we didn't take it. This was largely orchestrated by the same conservative leaders who lead the better dead than red cadres of the 1950's. We traded the communist under our beds for those people sleeping in our beds.
I agree with one corollary. There is nothing truly Christian about white male supremacy. Christianity is currently used, as it has been for the most part historically, as a falsely pious mask for prejudice and white male dominance, namely as a perversion of the teachings of Christ.
Thank you. As more equality has been embraces, yes there has been greater backlash for white, cis, wealthy men who have used “christianity” to control others and make them believe that they are of lesser value and their “glory” comes from serving the upper echelon of this hierarchy. I am a white (although my DNA heritage is European, African, Asian, Cherokee, Potawatomi, and Neanderthal) woman who has grown up under JaneCrow in the US. This view that I am of lesser value than any man has been reinforced by all religions that I know of, by our laws, and our culture. Even when abolitionists and suffragettes worked together for voting rights, in the end woman’s rights were deemed of less value and it was decided it was better to at least get the vote for black men. Pat Roberson has just died. He was consulted by many presidents and his grift was to use christianity to show all but white cis wealthy men as often downright abominations. He supported Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, all televangelist who bilked millions of dollars out of people who thought they were supporting the Lord, and would be blessed with abundance if they just gave money to them. I recently watched God Forbid on hula depicting the deceitful abusive world of Jerry Falwell Jr. and his college . Another “Christian” grift indoctrinating through abuse worldwide the value or authoritarian male rule. I also just watched Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets on Prime. This shows Bill Gothard, a predatory megalomaniac who has also used “Christian” as a way to control people and make a lot of money using an authoritarian model. I don’t know of any religion that does not use paternalist patriarchal paradigms that are hierarchical and authoritarian. We often think of these as benign, beneficial, providing comfort and strength, but in there totality do they? or do they support the view that women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, the disabled, the elderly, the poor are of lesser value? I for one will be glad when Yahweh goes the way of Zeus,,and we recognize that we live on a miraculous, and rare planet that supports LIFE. Why don’t we value all that nurtures and supports LIFE with all of its symbiotic interconnected relationships that all are important and have value?
Thank you for the video suggestions! Well stated!
Professor Zimmer, you’re spot on. The “right” absolutely freaked out when Obama was elected, TWICE. They had no choice as they saw it but to tip their hand. What puzzles me is why ~30M Americans accept it!
There are a couple elements missing, in my opinion. Money and the role of a diluted media. Our system is completely corrupted by money. Our politicians now all work for large donors and supers PACs. Voters really don’t matter which is why republicans continue to make it harder to vote. Additionally, the media has lost its way. With few exceptions they go for the money, not the deep investigative stories.
We’re devolving as a society as long as we allow the current situation to go unchanged.
@DaveP - I agree with your premise that the issue of money is also an important factor.
Good stuff, Thomas. Very clarifying. You might need to take a moment to explain why women and minorities sometimes support the GOP. My take is that these folks also have a kind of nostalgia for the old days and the old ways. And the GOP loves having their support so they get rewarded by the GOP in a kind of weird affirmative action plan that helps make the case to their critics that they aren't as racist and patriarchal as the Democrats claim. Keep up the great work.
You forget that women and minorities are physically, financially, and legally shackled. Nothing to do with nostalgia for when rape and lynching were allowed.
I'd say you miss one part of democracies in EU's that hugely differs from US and should therefore be mentioned: The voting mechanism in EU countries doesn't have a tendency to a dualism of parties. Hence they are more diverse and parties with even a one-digit share of votes could end up having Government responsibilities by building coalitions. Of course there are also downsides to this approach.
Thanks for your interesting draft, gladly I comply with your request for comments. I am not sure whether "multiracial" is the best choice to describe processes of democratization; "multiracial" depends on "race" and "race" is too much of a construction to be a good, reliable descriptor. Better alternatives to "multiracial" could be "inclusive" or "related to multiple forms of identities", where you could describe identity production easier than "race" construction, and inclusivity easier than multiple "races".
To my mind, your draft essay overlooks the role of the groups that have been the focus, and presumed beneficiaries, of the civil rights movement(s) since the 1950’s & 60’s. For that matter, also the role of enfranchising women about a century ago; central if only because some on the right hold female voters responsible for the moves to expand civil protections to others over the past six or so decades. Without considering those groups, to me, the draft itself seems almost patriarchal. And I say that as a white, cis male & ardent admirer of your online writing & podcasts.
I agree completely with your premise and I like the way you've presented it. Although you've repeatedly mentioned the hierarchy of white, cis, Christian men in the US, are you going to dive further into these components? Not all white, cis, Christian men are in control in the US but most support such as system, either directly or indirectly. Do they come together because they're white, cis, Christian or male, or is it this specific combination that works to seize power and refuse to relinquish it? There's also the obvious hypocrisy of these so-called "Christian" values and the greed and grift of Trump. There doesn't seem to be any real beliefs and policies among Republicans, only the need to control and keep power, but they proselytize constantly. And how do you explain the women and people of color who hop on the Republican bandwagon. I look forward to reading your work on this issue.
Very well stated 👍