It has occurred to me that much of the Righas hostility to things like gay and transgender righas, and abortion stems from looking at the world in strich dautistic terms. Everything is either good or evil, right or wrong. This inevitably leads to the idea that the Left is evil because it looks at the world differently. Gay and trans gender rights are celebrated by liberals because it recognizes the natural diversity of human experience. The Right refuses to accept this divarsity because it upsets their binary world view. This also explains racost attitudes. White skin is the "correct" image of a human being, any other shade makes a person less than fully human. There are seemingle endresses examples of this. Unfortunately I don't see a way out of this situation. I used to think education was the answer, but that no longer holds true. Do you see any solution?
I'm not saying that conservatives are stupid. What I'm saying is that dualism can lead to a fear of things that can't fit neatly into the dualistic world view. The extreme Right plays on this by couching their message in stark dualistic terms. When someone who is inclined to think in dualistic terms hears a message that cast their opponents as evil, anti-American, it resonates.
You can thank Davidson's piece for making me a paid subscriber. I agree with Davidson's first point, that social and culture change of technology (like the Pill) is overwhelming "tradition" therefore undermining a key tenet of what it is to be conservative. The piece uses pretzel logic to embrace authoritarianism and associated nonsense. But what about Jon Askonas piece from which Davidson got his warped inspiration from? As a "lay person" Askonas essay made sense to me. The digital age is rendering the defense of knee-jerk traditionalism nonsensical. He sees a "post traditional" Conserative movement that acknowledges the cultural and social challenges the digital age is creating. As classic progressive who likes "change"--but certainly not the kind of change social media has created in the last decade--I can get behind a new conservative movement that abandons knee-jerk traditonalism and starts asking the tough questions that market orientated liberals are not, as we unleash the next great technology. Askonas' piece https://compactmag.com/article/why-conservatism-failed
Thanks for the link to Askonas' piece, which I have just read, and will re-read. And with a bit of link following I found his CV with links to his pre-doctoral writing. Pleasantly surprised to see that at quality writing at Compact and not paywalled.
Thanks for this take on the much-discussed Davidson. This (your piece, not Davidson) is the kind of thing that keeps me a paid subscriber (not that I have any complaints about Eyes on the Right, but there are only so many paid subscriptions I can afford).
Shorter: how things work now but more so, how the Jim Crow South used to work.
0.) As far as democratic decision-making goes: One squares the circle by deciding that a very large number of people are not members of The People at all, as in (paraphrasing from memory) 'a large number of Americans are not really American any more'. This could be accomplished by explicit exclusion, or, more likely (at least at first) by a general tilt of the laws against the desired classes of untermenschen's voting, and by arranging circumstances such that to vote is to put yourself in danger.
1.) Given American traditions and current reality, I'd expect private right-wing militias running the gamut from Elks+ to straight-up death-squads doing a lot of the 'morality' (tribal tabou) enforcement—'private' but empowered by the federal and some state governments, and by personnel-overlap with the local law-enforcement hierarchy—to go about their pleasure with relative impunity.
You mentioned "The firing and jailing of teachers who expose children to sexually explicit material" as a policy the new counterrevolutionary right might pursue. You said such a policy would be a "great expansion in federal government power to curtail personal freedom". I don't understand this. Does "material" include literature like Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye", which recounts how she was raped? Many states' high school English curriculums include that particular piece of literature. Or are we talking pornography? If the former, then that would be a curtailment of the intellectual freedom right high school children have to be exposed to highly regarded American literature. If the latter, there is no personal freedom right to expose children to pornograhy.
I think you should be clearer about what you mean by "material."
It has occurred to me that much of the Righas hostility to things like gay and transgender righas, and abortion stems from looking at the world in strich dautistic terms. Everything is either good or evil, right or wrong. This inevitably leads to the idea that the Left is evil because it looks at the world differently. Gay and trans gender rights are celebrated by liberals because it recognizes the natural diversity of human experience. The Right refuses to accept this divarsity because it upsets their binary world view. This also explains racost attitudes. White skin is the "correct" image of a human being, any other shade makes a person less than fully human. There are seemingle endresses examples of this. Unfortunately I don't see a way out of this situation. I used to think education was the answer, but that no longer holds true. Do you see any solution?
When it comes to strict dualisms and binary thinking, it would be hard to be have a more simplistic, black-and-white worldview than
"Liberal *policies* reflect how liberal *people* are innately intelligent, open-minded, and generous,"
vs.
"Conservatives can't help but oppose liberal policies, because conservatives are stupid, sheltered bigots."
I'm not saying that conservatives are stupid. What I'm saying is that dualism can lead to a fear of things that can't fit neatly into the dualistic world view. The extreme Right plays on this by couching their message in stark dualistic terms. When someone who is inclined to think in dualistic terms hears a message that cast their opponents as evil, anti-American, it resonates.
You can thank Davidson's piece for making me a paid subscriber. I agree with Davidson's first point, that social and culture change of technology (like the Pill) is overwhelming "tradition" therefore undermining a key tenet of what it is to be conservative. The piece uses pretzel logic to embrace authoritarianism and associated nonsense. But what about Jon Askonas piece from which Davidson got his warped inspiration from? As a "lay person" Askonas essay made sense to me. The digital age is rendering the defense of knee-jerk traditionalism nonsensical. He sees a "post traditional" Conserative movement that acknowledges the cultural and social challenges the digital age is creating. As classic progressive who likes "change"--but certainly not the kind of change social media has created in the last decade--I can get behind a new conservative movement that abandons knee-jerk traditonalism and starts asking the tough questions that market orientated liberals are not, as we unleash the next great technology. Askonas' piece https://compactmag.com/article/why-conservatism-failed
Thanks for the link to Askonas' piece, which I have just read, and will re-read. And with a bit of link following I found his CV with links to his pre-doctoral writing. Pleasantly surprised to see that at quality writing at Compact and not paywalled.
So are we on track for a political version of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre?
Thanks for this take on the much-discussed Davidson. This (your piece, not Davidson) is the kind of thing that keeps me a paid subscriber (not that I have any complaints about Eyes on the Right, but there are only so many paid subscriptions I can afford).
Shorter: how things work now but more so, how the Jim Crow South used to work.
0.) As far as democratic decision-making goes: One squares the circle by deciding that a very large number of people are not members of The People at all, as in (paraphrasing from memory) 'a large number of Americans are not really American any more'. This could be accomplished by explicit exclusion, or, more likely (at least at first) by a general tilt of the laws against the desired classes of untermenschen's voting, and by arranging circumstances such that to vote is to put yourself in danger.
1.) Given American traditions and current reality, I'd expect private right-wing militias running the gamut from Elks+ to straight-up death-squads doing a lot of the 'morality' (tribal tabou) enforcement—'private' but empowered by the federal and some state governments, and by personnel-overlap with the local law-enforcement hierarchy—to go about their pleasure with relative impunity.
You mentioned "The firing and jailing of teachers who expose children to sexually explicit material" as a policy the new counterrevolutionary right might pursue. You said such a policy would be a "great expansion in federal government power to curtail personal freedom". I don't understand this. Does "material" include literature like Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye", which recounts how she was raped? Many states' high school English curriculums include that particular piece of literature. Or are we talking pornography? If the former, then that would be a curtailment of the intellectual freedom right high school children have to be exposed to highly regarded American literature. If the latter, there is no personal freedom right to expose children to pornograhy.
I think you should be clearer about what you mean by "material."