This is pretty much exactly how neo-Confederate justice has always operated. There are areas in the South where they are really not that far removed from the Klan in their sensibilities toward vigilante justice towards our groups. The Klan was always technically illegal, but the law enforcement just conveniently turned a blind eye to it, and — prior to the Supreme Court overturning Cruikshank — there was no broad legal understanding that people had civil rights worthy of protection from local mobs. When people say that MAGA is “revanchist,” they mean no more or less than that some folks think that overturning Cruikshank was an error.
About 20 years ago, while commiserating with another mom at a PTA meeting about something or another, I said that I thought what the school system was proposing was illegal (I’m an attorney). This woman’s husband was an engineer with his own engineering firm, which got lots of city and county contracts, very political. She turned to me and said, “My husband has a saying about laws and what’s “illegal”: Laws are things you enforce against your enemies and waive for your friends.”
True 20 years ago and still true today. Probably always has been true, I was just too naive to know it.
Serwer put it well. There's also Peru’s General Óscar Benavides' version: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” Serwer's goes further noting both protection and binding.
Many contend that this quote, or at least the same sentiment goes back at least to Rome & Cicero. Though Benavides also had plenty of company as Stalin was a big fan of the concept and Putin lives by it!
Came here to highlight this quote too. It's a sharp observation and you can see the GOP trying to codify this for some of their culture war issues. This GOP actively wants the country to be a more dangerous place for the people in the out-groups.
It all comes back to the "Real Americans (TM)" versus everyone else divide in our national politics that goes all the way back to the founding. White Christian conservatives who want a racial-sexual-theocratic social hierarchy versus the supporters of liberalism who want multi-cultural equality. Robert Kagan just wrote an excellent book on this long-standing dynamic in American history and both Shield of the Republic and Bill Kristol have had him onto their respective podcasts to discuss his findings in the last week ("Conversations" pod for Bill's). Highly recommend the listen to either for more on this dynamic as Bob puts it better than I can.
FYI, I'm currently reading "Illiberal America: A History" by NYU history prof Steven Hahn. He places illiberalism back to the political and cultural currents of the Euro-Atlantic world from the late 16th century on, specifically "the designs and process of settler colonialism of North America." In the late 18th-century, iIlliberalism was present in the Anti-Federalist cause.
I've long seen a line from the Anti-Federalists to the Confederacy to the late 19th-century populist People's Party to Buckley's and Reagan's conservatism all the way to the rot it has morphed into under Trump. I woud just point out that in each case, the illiberals lost and the US moved on.
Kagan's book is soooo good and you're going to see a ton of overlap between Hahn and Kagan. It's not a particularly long read/listen either. I'm wrapping it up at work as we speak.
The Perry pardon brings me back to an old quote about the GOP's stance on "law and order" from The Atlantic's very excellent Adam Serwer:
“There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
That's what this pardon is, and that's what Trump's promise of J6th pardons are.
Additional note: already got tix to Denver, can't wait to see you guys there!
This is pretty much exactly how neo-Confederate justice has always operated. There are areas in the South where they are really not that far removed from the Klan in their sensibilities toward vigilante justice towards our groups. The Klan was always technically illegal, but the law enforcement just conveniently turned a blind eye to it, and — prior to the Supreme Court overturning Cruikshank — there was no broad legal understanding that people had civil rights worthy of protection from local mobs. When people say that MAGA is “revanchist,” they mean no more or less than that some folks think that overturning Cruikshank was an error.
About 20 years ago, while commiserating with another mom at a PTA meeting about something or another, I said that I thought what the school system was proposing was illegal (I’m an attorney). This woman’s husband was an engineer with his own engineering firm, which got lots of city and county contracts, very political. She turned to me and said, “My husband has a saying about laws and what’s “illegal”: Laws are things you enforce against your enemies and waive for your friends.”
True 20 years ago and still true today. Probably always has been true, I was just too naive to know it.
Serwer got it from the composer Frank Wilhoit.
Serwer put it well. There's also Peru’s General Óscar Benavides' version: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” Serwer's goes further noting both protection and binding.
Serwer was quoting Frank Wilhoit, who made as a comment on Slate.com years ago.
That quote isn't attached to conservatism, however. Wilhoit's is specifically about conservatives.
Someone else in the comments used this exact quote earlier on, but now I know where it came from. Thanks!
Many contend that this quote, or at least the same sentiment goes back at least to Rome & Cicero. Though Benavides also had plenty of company as Stalin was a big fan of the concept and Putin lives by it!
Awesome! We gotta hang out.
Offer Travis a job writing, please!
We shall!
So jealous for the upcoming event featuring Jared Polis. Feel like I can live a life as a Bulwark Groupie.
Me too! Wish I had the bucks to do so. I did see them in LA last year and it was fabulous.
Came here to highlight this quote too. It's a sharp observation and you can see the GOP trying to codify this for some of their culture war issues. This GOP actively wants the country to be a more dangerous place for the people in the out-groups.
It all comes back to the "Real Americans (TM)" versus everyone else divide in our national politics that goes all the way back to the founding. White Christian conservatives who want a racial-sexual-theocratic social hierarchy versus the supporters of liberalism who want multi-cultural equality. Robert Kagan just wrote an excellent book on this long-standing dynamic in American history and both Shield of the Republic and Bill Kristol have had him onto their respective podcasts to discuss his findings in the last week ("Conversations" pod for Bill's). Highly recommend the listen to either for more on this dynamic as Bob puts it better than I can.
It's on my to-listen list!
FYI, I'm currently reading "Illiberal America: A History" by NYU history prof Steven Hahn. He places illiberalism back to the political and cultural currents of the Euro-Atlantic world from the late 16th century on, specifically "the designs and process of settler colonialism of North America." In the late 18th-century, iIlliberalism was present in the Anti-Federalist cause.
I've long seen a line from the Anti-Federalists to the Confederacy to the late 19th-century populist People's Party to Buckley's and Reagan's conservatism all the way to the rot it has morphed into under Trump. I woud just point out that in each case, the illiberals lost and the US moved on.
Kagan's book is soooo good and you're going to see a ton of overlap between Hahn and Kagan. It's not a particularly long read/listen either. I'm wrapping it up at work as we speak.
Just curious. How do you get to read while at work???
Audiobook (listening)
Lolligaggin!
Ah.
You beat me to it, Mike.