Conservatives want to restrict democracy in order to uphold white Christian patriarchal rule.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Thomas Zimmer
@tzimmer_history
A clarifying piece by @perrybaconjr: What kind of democracy, and for whom?

Conservatives want to restrict democracy in order to uphold white Christian patriarchal rule. They are turning to authoritarianism because they are failing. Thoughts from a historical perspective: 1/

Washington Post Opinions
@PostOpinions
The fight isn’t over whether America will be a democracy, but what kind of democracy, @PerryBaconJr writes https://wapo.st/3gzdDDU
7:26 AM · Feb 10, 2022

Zimmer is a visiting professor of History at Georgetown.

Unrolled thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1491780612855930884.html

A clarifying piece by @perrybaconjr: What kind of democracy, and for whom?

Conservatives want to restrict democracy in order to uphold white Christian patriarchal rule. They are turning to authoritarianism because they are failing. Thoughts from a historical perspective: 1/

There are two key questions that have defined recent U.S. history: How have ideas and realities of democracy changed, specifically since the 1950s? And how has political conservatism reacted to those shifting versions and visions of democracy? 2/

It is often said that the U.S. is the world’s oldest democracy. While that is not necessarily incorrect, depending on the definition of “democracy,” it obscures rather than illuminates the reality of American life, past and present, and the nature of the current conflict. 3/

Based on a monolithic understanding of the term that portrays the U.S. as a very old, “consolidated” democracy, the current political conflict must seem utterly baffling: Where is the anti-democratic radicalization of the Republican Party coming from all of a sudden? 4/

That is, unfortunately, the assumption underlying too much of the “democracy in crisis” discourse: That America was, until quite recently, a stable, liberal democracy that has come under threat as more and more people are turning their back on it – because… why? 5/

Quite often, the answer is “It was Obama!” But if the election of a moderately liberal politician whose sole “radicalism” consisted of being Black led to you favoring rightwing authoritarianism, you were never on board with multiracial democracy to begin with. 6/

It’s better to start by acknowledging what “democracy” meant in America before the civil rights legislation of the 1960s: A system that was fairly democratic if you happened to be a white Christian man – and something else entirely if you were not. 7/

The Reconstruction period was a notable exception from this norm – which only strengthens the argument: America’s first attempt at multiracial democracy turned out to be a fairly short-lived experiment, drowned in ostensibly “race-neutral” laws and white reactionary violence. 8/

After Reconstruction, the country was dominated for decades by a white elite consensus to not only leave the brutal apartheid regime in the South untouched, but to uphold white Christian patriarchal rule within the confines of a restricted version of democracy. 9/

By the 1960s, however, white elite consensus had started to fracture and America split over the question of whether or not the country should extend the promise of democracy - should finally become a functioning multiracial, pluralistic democracy. 10/

The 1960s civil rights legislation set in motion a process of partisan realignment and ideological sorting – ultimately uniting the forces opposing multiracial pluralism in a Republican Party that has focused solely on the interests and sensibilities of white conservatives. 11/

And white conservatives tend to have a very specific idea of what “real America” is and should be: They define it as a predominantly white, Christian, patriarchal nation. America, to them, is supposed to be a place where white Christian men are at the top. 12/

The overriding concern of conservatism as a political project as it has existed in the United States since at least the 1950s, and thus the GOP’s overriding concern since at least the 1970s, has been to preserve that white Christian nationalist version of “real America.” 13/

In other words, conservatives’ allegiance has never been to democratic ideals – their acceptance of democracy was always conditional and depending entirely on whether or not it would be set up in way that allowed for the forces of multiracial pluralism to be kept in check. 14/

But due to political, cultural, and most importantly demographic changes, the conservative political project has come under enormous pressure, and the Republican hold on power has become tenuous, certainly on the federal level, and even in some previously “red” states. 15/

Nothing symbolized this threat to white dominance like Barack Obama’s presidency - an outrageous subversion of what reactionaries understand as America’s natural order, made worse by the fact that he managed to get re-elected with less than 40 percent of the white vote. 16/

In this sense, Obama’s presidency had a clarifying effect for many white people, and dramatically heightened the perception – the white conservative fear – of demographic change that would be accompanied by a loss of political and cultural dominance. 17/

Republicans understand better than anyone else that in a functioning democratic system, they would have to either widen their focus beyond the interests and sensibilities of white conservatives, which they are not willing to do; or relinquish power, which they reject. 18/

They have chosen a different path, determined to transform the political system in a way that would allow them to hold on to power without majority support, even against the explicit desire of a growing numerical majority of the electorate. 19/

It is imprecise to say that conservatives are turning their backs on democracy. Rather than going from "pro-democratic" to "anti-democratic," they’ve been fairly consistent: on board with a restricted version of democracy, but determined to prevent multiracial pluralism. 20/

But what about those within the Republican Party who are siding against Trump, like Cheney and Kinzinger? Or even Romney and Murkowski, who are rejecting the GOP’s embrace of the January 6 attack and the attempt to legitimize political violence? 21/

This is where we need a more precise understanding of the political conflict and clearer language to describe the struggle over “democracy.” Good on Cheney et al. for refusing to cross over into open authoritarianism – but defenders of multiracial democracy they are not. 22/

Remember that while they are publicly criticizing Trump and support going after the insurrectionists, they have been unwilling to push back against the Republican assault on the political system on the state level and the ongoing attempts to subvert democracy. 23/

Their actions point to an important fault line on the American Right. As @DavidAstinWalsh points out, some parts of the Right were never content with accepting the post-1960s reality and railed against the acquiescence and appeasement of the forces of multiracial pluralism. 24/

Unroll available on Thread Reader

After Obama, this idea that Republicans were selling out “real” America, that more drastic action was urgently needed, was spreading fast into the conservative mainstream. In this view, Liberals were winning, destroying the country, and Republican appeasement was complicit. 25/

Michael Anton’s infamous “Flight 93” essay, for instance, is full of disdain for “ordinary” Republicans who are “merely reactive.” His whole rational for uniting behind Trump in the 2016 election was that Trump would be willing to go much further to save “real America.” 26/
Unroll available on Thread Reader

Similarly, the essay in which Claremont scholar Glenn Ellmers declared everyone who voted for Joe Biden, over half of the electorate, “Un-American” and not worthy of inclusion in the body politic was titled “’Conservatism’ is no Longer Enough.” 27/
Unroll available on Thread Reader

These are not simply the fever dreams of reactionary intellectuals. People like L. Boebert, M. Taylor Greene, and M. Cawthorn symbolize the rise of authoritarian extremism within the GOP, and their radicalism is widely seen as justified by fellow Republicans. 28/

The conflict on the Right seems to be between those like Cheney and Kinzinger who want to uphold white Christian elite rule from within the confines of a narrowly restricted version of democracy – and those who want to pursue that goal by openly embracing authoritarianism. 29/

I am not suggesting that this is a distinction without a difference – it matters whether or not a democratic framework remains in place because, at the very least, it provides basic protections and some room for real democratization as well as racial and social progress. 30/

But the position Cheney, Romney et al. are trying to hold is untenable. In a way, the Trumpists are more honest about where we are: America has indeed become more diverse, more pluralistic, more liberal. The country can have white Christian patriarchal rule *or* democracy. 31/

Cheney, Romney et al. are trying to have their cake and eat it too. It won’t work: The lack of legitimacy for the restricted white elite version of democracy is too stark. America will either slide into authoritarianism or make the leap to multiracial, pluralistic democracy. 32/

Public critique of Trump matters less than the continued de facto support for an authoritarian GOP. The fundamental reality of American politics is that democracy has become a partisan issue – the Democratic Party is the country’s sole democratic party. /end


Here's the WaPo article referenced in the first Tweet
https://archive.fo/oboCc

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Not what kind of democracy, what kind of christofascist theocracy.

Welcome to the Christian Republic of the United States. The "Republic" part meaning one party representing the citizenry.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. Would something like this result in INQUISITIONS???

Where being NON-Christian could lead to autrocities?

Did we not learn anything from the Salem witch trials and executions that Christianity is not a tolerant religious heading?

[qazplm135]

3. It definitely was Obama

Folks have to remember he came out of nowhere. He was a shock to the system and he beat a white war hero fairly handily.

Then he did it to another white religious dude.

That plus gay marriage, and then the prospect of a woman?

That was the straw.

It seems simplistic but yeah they see their grip slipping and this is that final gasp