I think this note misses the mark. Besides pointing to cases of Republican hypocrisy, a type of argument very much in their mold that lends itself to a muddle of mutual accusations, the main argument that Republicans see themselves as victims is neither new nor revealing or insightful. It doesn't lead you to much analysis and the obvious questions it raises seem to escape you (if "people [Republican politicians] were only ever victims in their own minds and they’ve been this way long before Biden was president." how do they convince voters who might themselves not see themselves as such ? Or are the voters made of the same mold ? etc.). Pointing to instances where you seem to disagree with the Democrats and arguing that it lead to "this" (without argument mind you) just disappoints. Please focus on the pertinent analysis that drives this substack!
To the extent that pointing out these hypocrisies gets us into a “muddle of mutual accusations” I think it’s worth doing. This is the best medium for it since we can cite dozens of sources and be very precise about what’s true and what isn’t without the worry of crosstalk or falling into insults. Maybe a few MAGA people would read this piece and find some part convincing, but I doubt it. I don’t know how to persuade those people and I’m not interested in softening the truth or my criticisms in some desperate attempt to reach them. I think the point I most object to is your last one about the Democrats though. They’ve spent the last year telling everyone how dangerous and anti-Semitic anti-genocide protests are. Of course that greases the wheels for an authoritarian who wants to use the power of the state to crush them and imprison its leaders. Of course it’s abetting Trump when you tell your party members not to visit a victim of his deportation policy; you’re telling his administration that you’ll be compliant! This kind of weakness is what makes the Democratic Party so unappealing to young people, and those are voters I feel much more optimistic about reaching than whatever MAGAs this article is supposed to convert
Thank you for taking the time to reply and for engaging with criticism.
I don't think the muddle is worth falling into. Not because there is no value in taking apart various claims, but because it has been done so much before and is done without much thought. A Republican claim is restated shown to be false and on we move. At points you make good observations (e.g. the stark turnaround in rhetoric) but not much is developed and the conclusion that "people [Republican politicians] were only ever victims in their own minds and they’ve been this way long before Biden was president." is also not much to speak of. You argue the democrats are also to blame and present two arguments in the reply ( (1) "you’re telling his administration that you’ll be compliant!", i.e. compliance enables (2) "This kind of weakness is what makes the Democratic Party so unappealing to young people", i.e. compliance is/makes one unpopular among young voters). These arguments are worth discussing, but are absent in the original piece. The idea that speaking truth to power (be it to clearly false claims as in the case of Republicans or to points of principle as seems to be more the case with democrats) is itself analysis stuns me as naive and directionless. Naive since I think if it was simply a question of convcing with facts Republicans could and presumably would not make these claims. Directionless since there is no more analysis to make sense of it or draw out its implications, hypocrisy is a fait accompli sans conséquences. The posts I enjoyed most on this Substack have been about little observations (e.g. how people don't read books in economics anymore) or spoken to something that seems to drive your writing (your post on Gen Z was quite poignant), so maybe I just enjoy more quiet analytical pieces more. I hope the criticism offered a contrast to your own thoughts.
Well said. If the Democrats are going to challenge fascism, they will need new populist leaning leadership.
I think this note misses the mark. Besides pointing to cases of Republican hypocrisy, a type of argument very much in their mold that lends itself to a muddle of mutual accusations, the main argument that Republicans see themselves as victims is neither new nor revealing or insightful. It doesn't lead you to much analysis and the obvious questions it raises seem to escape you (if "people [Republican politicians] were only ever victims in their own minds and they’ve been this way long before Biden was president." how do they convince voters who might themselves not see themselves as such ? Or are the voters made of the same mold ? etc.). Pointing to instances where you seem to disagree with the Democrats and arguing that it lead to "this" (without argument mind you) just disappoints. Please focus on the pertinent analysis that drives this substack!
To the extent that pointing out these hypocrisies gets us into a “muddle of mutual accusations” I think it’s worth doing. This is the best medium for it since we can cite dozens of sources and be very precise about what’s true and what isn’t without the worry of crosstalk or falling into insults. Maybe a few MAGA people would read this piece and find some part convincing, but I doubt it. I don’t know how to persuade those people and I’m not interested in softening the truth or my criticisms in some desperate attempt to reach them. I think the point I most object to is your last one about the Democrats though. They’ve spent the last year telling everyone how dangerous and anti-Semitic anti-genocide protests are. Of course that greases the wheels for an authoritarian who wants to use the power of the state to crush them and imprison its leaders. Of course it’s abetting Trump when you tell your party members not to visit a victim of his deportation policy; you’re telling his administration that you’ll be compliant! This kind of weakness is what makes the Democratic Party so unappealing to young people, and those are voters I feel much more optimistic about reaching than whatever MAGAs this article is supposed to convert
Thank you for taking the time to reply and for engaging with criticism.
I don't think the muddle is worth falling into. Not because there is no value in taking apart various claims, but because it has been done so much before and is done without much thought. A Republican claim is restated shown to be false and on we move. At points you make good observations (e.g. the stark turnaround in rhetoric) but not much is developed and the conclusion that "people [Republican politicians] were only ever victims in their own minds and they’ve been this way long before Biden was president." is also not much to speak of. You argue the democrats are also to blame and present two arguments in the reply ( (1) "you’re telling his administration that you’ll be compliant!", i.e. compliance enables (2) "This kind of weakness is what makes the Democratic Party so unappealing to young people", i.e. compliance is/makes one unpopular among young voters). These arguments are worth discussing, but are absent in the original piece. The idea that speaking truth to power (be it to clearly false claims as in the case of Republicans or to points of principle as seems to be more the case with democrats) is itself analysis stuns me as naive and directionless. Naive since I think if it was simply a question of convcing with facts Republicans could and presumably would not make these claims. Directionless since there is no more analysis to make sense of it or draw out its implications, hypocrisy is a fait accompli sans conséquences. The posts I enjoyed most on this Substack have been about little observations (e.g. how people don't read books in economics anymore) or spoken to something that seems to drive your writing (your post on Gen Z was quite poignant), so maybe I just enjoy more quiet analytical pieces more. I hope the criticism offered a contrast to your own thoughts.
An excellent compilation. The "sheeple" [sic] are so easily manipulated.
And also https://www.mattball.org/2023/11/freedoms-just-another-word-for-i-got.html