Most of TFG's supporters think they are supporting democracy, although most of them don't really understand what that means and we can't really know individually how they do or would define it. As the polls showed, the number of Rs-TFG supporters who are worried about democracy in America is substantially higher than Dems. But there are …
Most of TFG's supporters think they are supporting democracy, although most of them don't really understand what that means and we can't really know individually how they do or would define it. As the polls showed, the number of Rs-TFG supporters who are worried about democracy in America is substantially higher than Dems. But there are "elites" who tell them what they're doing is right and validate the delusion. The elites who consciously understand they're moving the country toward authoritarianism has reached a critical mass and their project is succeeding. They're the real threat. The ones who write hagiographies of the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal, like here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/waiting-for-our-salazar/. Tucker Carlson clearly belongs in that club given his entirely optional touting of Orban and Putin despite no one really clamoring for it, for reasons that are not totally clear to me, although I suspect strongly he plans to run for office someday and sees himself as the future tyrant, or at least a major player in such a regime, and perhaps wants help from abroad. Charlie Sykes has asked why Tucker is doing what he's doing, and that's my answer. Brooks doesn't use the word, but the one he should have used in his write-up of the National Conservativism conference is totalitarianism, which is what it is to capture the state and then use state power to reshape and enforce culture and society. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/scary-future-american-right-national-conservatism-conference/620746/. Reshaping the culture from the top down, don't think it worked too well generally so maybe they should re-read their history. Then again, it's actually not about the culture. As Orwell wrote, the justifications change, the underlying motivation, power for power's sake, never changes. So whenever anyone talks about how their ideas are hypocritical, or impractical, or illogical, it's really missing the point. Here's a quote from the head of the Claremont Institute: “The ideal endgame would be to effect a realignment of our politics and take control of all three branches of government for a generation or two." Hmm, interesting, I feel like there might be a name for that, 30-40 years of unbroken single party rule.
So, in their own words, they acknowledge the goal is dictatorship and totalitarianism. I call it elite failure because there is now a substantial element of political, media, economic, and intellectual elite in this country that wants a dictatorship. They see themselves as our masters and us as their slaves. Why that happened, I don't know. The failure of the other elites on the right was not to stop them, but rather help and try to profit off their growing strength. The failure of other elites was not to stop them, not to blacklist them, not to refuse to do business with them or give them airtime.
I said I don't know why we developed a substantial bastion of elite support for dictatorship, but there are theories. I'm not the first to point out the parallels with the American South in the run up to the Civil War, but the parallels are striking and worth repeating. In both cases we had demographic shifts that certain elites in parts of the country (the South then/conservatives now) interpreted (wrongly, I'd argue) as meaning the perpetual decline of their political influence and permanent powerlessness, leading to economic ruin (losing their slaves then/higher taxes today). In both cases, elites told their followers (and mostly convinced themselves as well) via their media ecosystem (Southern/conservative) that they faced total cultural, economic, and even physical destruction at the hands of their enemies (Northerners/abolitionists/blacks then, liberal, atheistic "Communists" today) if they lost their political power. Given those stakes, secession, civil war, or dictatorship are preferable to most people rather then being murdered or enslaved by their enemies. Unfortunately for us, whereas the South was geographically concentrated enough to make secession appealing, the geographical lines aren't so clear cut today, so the only solution is to seize the whole country.
Most of TFG's supporters think they are supporting democracy, although most of them don't really understand what that means and we can't really know individually how they do or would define it. As the polls showed, the number of Rs-TFG supporters who are worried about democracy in America is substantially higher than Dems. But there are "elites" who tell them what they're doing is right and validate the delusion. The elites who consciously understand they're moving the country toward authoritarianism has reached a critical mass and their project is succeeding. They're the real threat. The ones who write hagiographies of the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal, like here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/waiting-for-our-salazar/. Tucker Carlson clearly belongs in that club given his entirely optional touting of Orban and Putin despite no one really clamoring for it, for reasons that are not totally clear to me, although I suspect strongly he plans to run for office someday and sees himself as the future tyrant, or at least a major player in such a regime, and perhaps wants help from abroad. Charlie Sykes has asked why Tucker is doing what he's doing, and that's my answer. Brooks doesn't use the word, but the one he should have used in his write-up of the National Conservativism conference is totalitarianism, which is what it is to capture the state and then use state power to reshape and enforce culture and society. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/scary-future-american-right-national-conservatism-conference/620746/. Reshaping the culture from the top down, don't think it worked too well generally so maybe they should re-read their history. Then again, it's actually not about the culture. As Orwell wrote, the justifications change, the underlying motivation, power for power's sake, never changes. So whenever anyone talks about how their ideas are hypocritical, or impractical, or illogical, it's really missing the point. Here's a quote from the head of the Claremont Institute: “The ideal endgame would be to effect a realignment of our politics and take control of all three branches of government for a generation or two." Hmm, interesting, I feel like there might be a name for that, 30-40 years of unbroken single party rule.
So, in their own words, they acknowledge the goal is dictatorship and totalitarianism. I call it elite failure because there is now a substantial element of political, media, economic, and intellectual elite in this country that wants a dictatorship. They see themselves as our masters and us as their slaves. Why that happened, I don't know. The failure of the other elites on the right was not to stop them, but rather help and try to profit off their growing strength. The failure of other elites was not to stop them, not to blacklist them, not to refuse to do business with them or give them airtime.
I said I don't know why we developed a substantial bastion of elite support for dictatorship, but there are theories. I'm not the first to point out the parallels with the American South in the run up to the Civil War, but the parallels are striking and worth repeating. In both cases we had demographic shifts that certain elites in parts of the country (the South then/conservatives now) interpreted (wrongly, I'd argue) as meaning the perpetual decline of their political influence and permanent powerlessness, leading to economic ruin (losing their slaves then/higher taxes today). In both cases, elites told their followers (and mostly convinced themselves as well) via their media ecosystem (Southern/conservative) that they faced total cultural, economic, and even physical destruction at the hands of their enemies (Northerners/abolitionists/blacks then, liberal, atheistic "Communists" today) if they lost their political power. Given those stakes, secession, civil war, or dictatorship are preferable to most people rather then being murdered or enslaved by their enemies. Unfortunately for us, whereas the South was geographically concentrated enough to make secession appealing, the geographical lines aren't so clear cut today, so the only solution is to seize the whole country.
Very well put.