I have mentioned a number of times that there's a sizeable bloc of conservatives who believe—really, literally believe—that liberals hate America and are deliberately trying to subvert and cripple it. This level of paranoid delusion, fueled by Fox News and others, is what produces events like the January 6 insurrection. If you truly believed that the country was on the verge of collapse if Democrats governed for a few more years, you might have joined in.
This belief originated in the white evangelical community and mostly centered on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, religious freedom, and so forth. It has since spread beyond the religious community, but the religious ties are still there.
Now, you may or may not believe me about this. I gather that many of you don't, which makes it useful that in the Atlantic this month Emma Green interviewed Ryan Williams, president of the Claremont Institute.
The Claremont Institute used to be a fairly ordinary conservative think tank, but around 2016 or so it went around the bend. It was the source of the infamous essay, "The Flight 93 Election," and was an early supporter of Donald Trump. One of its senior fellows, John Eastman, wrote a brief in early 2021 trying to make the case that Vice President Mike Pence could declare Trump the winner of the 2020 election.
This makes Ryan Williams an interesting source of apocalyptic conservatism. Let's hear him out:
Emma Green: What do you see as the threats to Western civilization?
Ryan Williams: The one we have focused on at the Claremont Institute is the progressive movement....I would say the leading edge of progressivism now is this kind of woke, social-justice anti-racism. It’s a threat to limited government because it seems to take its lead from scholars like Ibram Kendi, [whose] definition of racism is any policy that results in disparate outcomes for different groups....The pursuit of equal results is only going to be successful in a new woke totalitarianism. I realize that sounds a little hyperbolic, but that seems to be the road we’re on.
....Even during the Civil War—I think we’re more divided now than we were then. As Lincoln said, we all prayed to the same God. We all believed in the same Constitution. We just differed over the question of slavery....Most of the Founders of America were Christians. There were radicals, to be sure. But there was much more consensus back then on what human nature is—on monotheism, broadly speaking, but really Christianity as well.
....Green: Do you think America can hang together in 2021 without Christianity at its core?
Williams: I’m ambivalent about that question. I think it would be bad for America if that longtime Christian core disintegrated. The Founders were pretty unanimous, with Washington leading the way, that the Constitution is really only fit for a Christian people.
....Green: Do you feel like there is a hopeful future for America, or do you think we are headed toward some sort of generationally defining conflict that could potentially be violent?
Williams: I worry about such a conflict. The Civil War was terrible. It should be the thing we try to avoid almost at all costs.
Hmmm. "Almost."
Williams is obviously trying to come across as a thinker, not an evangelical hysteric. Nevertheless, he believes that America is on its way to decay and ultimate ruin if progressives remain in charge, pushing their anti-Christian and anti-racist agenda. Presumably Williams means that neither Christians nor white people will put up with this, and a civil war is inevitable if progressives don't change their tune.
How common is this view? I can't say for sure, but I think I can say that it's not especially rare these days among conservatives. It is this kind of view, pushed down to the rank and file by Fox News, evangelical pastors, and the entire conservative media machine, that makes the right wing so dangerous these days: they are desperately afraid of what they think liberals are doing and are increasingly willing to do anything to stop it. They support Donald Trump not in spite of his all-but-open racism and stagey Christianity—which make even many Republicans cringe—but because of it.
And as I mentioned above, if you really believe in this, it makes sense that you would be willing to resort to violence to prevent progressives from running things. This is not normal politics. It is, as Williams says, a belief that Trump's version of conservatism is the only thing standing between modern progressives and the destruction of Western Civilization.
What is America? What is a nation? People have different answers to those questions. If the size of government was a defining issue between left and right over the past few decades, the emerging central issue is how to define the nation we call America, which leads to the question of who qualifies as a (true) American.
I've always believed our country was defined by its commitment to what we generally call American ideals. That includes a dedication to: the freedoms and rights described in our founding documents; the idea that we are citizens, not subjects; a government based on the consent of the governed; the rule of law; equality of all people under the law, regardless of creed, color, race, gender, national origin, economic status, and so forth. Often our ideals have been more aspirational than what we practice, but where we have fallen short pointed to where we needed to improve. This basic idea of what it means to be American is so fundamental to my view that it comes as something of a shock to learn that many people do not see it that way.
In my view, if there is anything to American "exceptionalism," it is how we define ourselves as a nation. What other nations define themselves by a set of beliefs and ideals that its people adhere to? Most, if not all, have defined themselves in terms of culture, ethnicity, etc.
Here's Wikipedia's definition of "nation":
A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or territory. A nation is thus the collective identity of a group of people understood as defined by those features.
That definition of nation makes sense if you are defining Germany, a younger nation than ours, which unified less than 200 years ago. Previously the Germans were spread across hundreds of political entities, including duchies and princedoms, many once affiliated with the defunct Holy Roman Empire. But those (pre-Germany) Germans were united by ethnicity and cultural traditions such as a common language and religion (the Catholic minority had challenges but fared better than the Jews). The German people, by this definition, were a "nation" before they were finally united politically by the Prussians (Austria the exception).
This kind of thinking is so prevalent that it's no surprise that many Americans think of our nation the same way. If you think that America is a nation that shares an ethnicity (white), history (European), religion (Christianity), language (English), etc., then you don't need Kendi to rally your side. Barack Obama was the beginning of the end.
As I said, I think the true American exceptionalism is how we define ourselves. If we forget that lesson of history, then the centuries ahead look bleak.
No Zimmerman/Blake was the beginning of the end. All niggy whining started with that. Kendi is a dumb dyke who doesn't even understand classical Marxism.
Your post shows why you need replaced.
Lets also note, many people believe that racism died out in the 70's and 80's with improving race relations. Only the Al Sharpton's types con grift which over the 90's and 00's was mostly ignored......until Obama brought back the focus on race, tearing the scab. I don't agree with that either. Obama was mostly policy focused until Zimmerman/Martin. After that, many negros became radicalized. Easily a turning point. Obama did not help the matter during the Z/M incident.
In the US, for the most part only those white people who have experience only with other white people or who have no curiosity are unaware of racism. It might not be as obvious wherever you are.
"All niggy whining..."
Okay, seriously, what is it going to take for Kevin to ban this troll?
Eff you. "Z/M" and the Michael Brown disaster forever disgraced those people with even their own kind. It was part why the conservative movement has become so militarized.
Surprised you didn't call George Zimmerman a Fake Mexican Cryptojew.
Kevin won't ban the troll. It leaves its droppings to get attention. Starve the troll. Don't feed it.
Ban yourself. What I say is truth.
At the bottom of a bottle.
He's obviously not going to ban him. So don't feed him please. Your comment just did exactly that.
Why is there no "report" button.
Ah yes, White Americans vote for Trump and riot, kill and main, but Black Americans are the problem? LOL.
Healthcare, abortion, environment, guns- are all politics. 2021 “voter security” legislation is just voter suppression, and is not politics, it’s JimCrow II.
15 years ago I saw this bumper sticker
Yankees- 1, Rebels- 0
Half Time
They have never forgotten nor given up
What other nations define themselves by a set of beliefs and ideals that its people adhere to?
Islamic republics and kingdoms. Liberals generally regard them as repressive.
Australia, among others. Matedom. Fair play, etc. I think very few of your fellow citizens would, in 2021, be comfortable with the idea of the Commonwealth as a "blood and soil" state.
You've confused nation with country. Try again.
A Nation and a Country are two different things. What you're describing is how NATIONALISTS view America, not how it is or how it ever was.
One doesn't have much time for Nationalists.
And that's why it's time for liberals to begin arming themselves. The military might stay out of it but the local cops are going to join up with the death squads.
Well, the issue with the illiberalism of people like Kendi, and of modern anti-racism in general, seems valid. I’ve read Kendi’s infamous statement (I think it was published in the Economist Mag - and maybe elsewhere) where he endorses the idea of unconstitutional tribunals that should enforce equitable (or “anti-racist”) outcomes; and, yes, there really does appear to be an authoritarian tendency with that sort of far “left” activism.
And it really does seem to be an unfortunate state of affairs when criticism of that sort of thing might get you harassed on Twitter (or similar platforms). Yes, there is a level of political correctness on the Left and it does seem to create hesitation when it comes to calling out some of these extreme ideas.
But, what the Fox News scaremongers (and others) distort about this picture is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are very different from the likes of Kendi. And, as far as I’m aware, there is zero chance of the extreme woke anti-racist type taking over, or even exerting much influence over, state or local governments.
In fact, there is only one governmental body that I know of which truly attempted to put textbook anti-racism into practice: the San Francisco school board. Their attempts to rename dozens of schools and eliminate entrance exams in order to force more diversity onto schools are all straight out of the anti-racist playbook. But the result is that the city of SF seems to genuinely resent that school board. A recall effort gathered 80,000 signatures and the recall vote will almost certainly kick various school board members out of office. So, the reality is that even in the country’s most liberal city, the kind of woke extremism that these conservative think tanks are worried about does not actually have much of any appeal.
Nevertheless, I really don’t think it’s enough to just dismiss Fox News and Conservative think tanks when they complain about the extremes of woke anti-racism. Liberals and Progressives (or whatever people call themselves these days) should be doing a better job of arguing against the illiberals in their own midsts.
Yes, liberals should spend all their time attacking anyone Fox News disapproves of. This is what they want us to do. How about we worry more about the white supremacist Republicans who hold actual power instead?
One of the great failings of the modern Republican party/conservative movement is that they have not done a sufficient job of calling out the extremists in their own ranks. That is, in fact, one of the factors that has led to and contributes to the problem(s) described in Kevin's post. We (liberals/progressives) should not follow that example; so,
sure, call out republicans/conservatives: that more or less goes without saying. But, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with calling out the excesses of one's own side.
Why does renaming schools and ending entrance exams get people worked up so much? That just makes San Francisco's schools resemble most of the rest of the country.
The vast majority of high schools are either named after the town in which they sit, or have some bland geographical designation: North High, Eastview High, Two Rivers Area High, etc. Naming a high school after a person is unnecessary and not actually that common. Dropping the names of awful individuals just brings them in line with the average school name.
As for entrance exams, almost no public schools use them. Hardly any school districts have the option of a special school for "smart" kids, because they only have one or two high schools to begin with. They arent even that common in cities with lots of high schools. I dont think there is a single public high school in my whole state that has an entrance exam to determine access.
I get that changing names sucks up time and a bit of money, but this is hardly wokeness gone extreme. Kids will still have a variety of classes to choose from, some harder than others, and they'll get the grades they earn. It's not like San Francisco is going to force every 12 grader to take remedial math class and then give everyone an A.
In theory, the renaming of schools or the removal of entrance exams may not pose much of a problem; but there are, indeed, reasons why these issues became such a controversy in San Francisco. For one thing, schools were not renamed so that their new names could simply reflect their location; the SF school board was explicit that its mission was to rename schools that were named after anyone deemed objectionable. The school board then proceeded to find people like Abraham Lincoln objectionable and, sure enough, his name had to go. Paul Revere as well. To add insult to injury, the school board declined to find Malcolm X objectionable (despite his history as a pimp - among other things). In his case, they wanted to view his evolution as a human being. With others, however, any seemingly objectionable incident anywhere in their life was enough to get them booted. That's what happened to Senator Feinstein. Her name had to go: apparently because of one incident with a Confederate flag (which was eventually removed). No growth or change allowed for her, I guess.
The entrance exam situation was also complicated by controversial factors. The school in question has a high percentage of Asian students. So, the move to get rid of its entrance exam was seen not just as an action towards supposed equity, but more specifically it was seen in an anti-Asian light. That interpretation was bolstered when it turned out that one of the school board members had complained on twitter (of course) that Asians are successful because they act like white supremacists.
So, in a different context it is indeed possible that similar actions might not be problematic. But in San Francisco it really seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the school board members made their extreme views explicit, and it's not surprising they ticked off the city as a result.
My own peeve with this situation is that it just helps to make the Left look stupid at best, extremist at worst, and maybe that and more all at the same time. And there's an awful lot of commentary out there along similar lines. The Atlantic referred to this situation as a holier-than-thou crusade providing an absurd amount of material for Faux news to riff on. And, sure, Fox will come up with negative stories about Lefties anyway, but we just really don't need to make it this easy for them.
The committee in San Francisco determined that any figures who “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” should not have schools named for them.
Seems 100% OK. The problem might be racists having a problem with it rather than the actual renaming itself (which hasn't yet happened because of said backlash).
Uh, they do.
Why should their be inequity between the races? Inequity should be a result of personal character and it's content, not the color of one's skin.
Kendi is probably more right that you know. In fact the virulent response to what is really a very modest thought experiment of his demonstrates he's largely correct.
One thing I'll say about this is that, as a Californian, I'm glad the far right is split so decisively between the libertarians (Silicon Valley) and the religious white power types (Claremont). If they got together they'd be pretty invincible, I fear. But I don't see any way they can reconcile their differences.
Also, I know they love to talk about "civil war" but we're not gonna have civil war. The civil war happened because two very distinct societies which really were incompatible developed in the 1800s. These days it's the country clubbers, represented by Claremont Institute, vs everybody else. No one's gonna fight for the country clubbers.
Describing both the religious white power types and the Silicon Valley libertarians as "right wing" just shows how completely inadequate the right/left paradigm is. The two groups are different in almost every way. First and foremost, the Silicon Valley libertarians are NOT conservative. A conservative supports the status quo and opposes change. The Silicon Valley libertarians despise the status quo and are all for changing the world just as much as possible. They are a bigger threat to religious conservatives than almost any other group you can define.
Disagree. For the past 50 years they agreed on (getting rid of) taxes and regulation. But now they've split because they made such a hash of things. I think only a figure of Trump's conman skills can bring them together -- but that achievement seems only temporary. As an example, Peter Thiel actively supported Trump in 2016, but stayed out in 2020.
Conservatism is synonomous with radical today. So that's already one thing that doesn't jive.
"Conservative" has to a considerable extent been co-opted by reactionaries. Radicals are at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I don't see much "split" at all in political terms. They nearly all vote MAGA/GOP. From what I can see most of the third party vote in 2016 represented wayward Democrats (not Never-Trumper Republicans). And they nearly all stayed in the fold for Donne if 2020. I mean, Thiel was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump.
It's been pointed out here by another poster, but it's worth repeating: Christian Americans fought the deadliest war in our history over slavery, with each side claiming that it represented Christian civilization.
We're nowhere near that, but the extreme right wing ignores the Christian roots of the Civil War and presumes that it is liberals are out to destroy the institutions conservatives revere most, instead of seeing that there are cultural shifts going on that liberals might favor, but which are progressing independently.
But to an evangelical Christian, secularism itself is a real threat.
They aren't ignoring it, they know it's happening. They want to prevent it and turn back the clock.
Haven't said anything that hasn't been said collectively anyway, but here's my take: Yeah, these guys sincerely believe that the 'end of civilization' is nigh. What they won't tell you explicitly is that to them, 'civilization' means state-sanctioned discrimination against women, minorities, the poor in general, and those who don't hew to their view of 'Christianity'. That they won't say that part out loud tells the rest of us that they know they're not good guys ... and they don't give a good God damn.
The irony is they seek to defend "Western Civilization", but what they want to enforce is barbarianism. I guess it irks them that civilized concepts like Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and State are Liberal concepts.
Nope. The vast majority of them don't really believe the literal end of civilization is approaching.
Rather, they just believe (rightly so) that the probability of political outcomes they dislike is increasing. Such outcomes include: the weakening of white ethnonationalist privilege; the rise of social democracy; racial/ethnic diversification; the acceptance of rich world norms on firearms safety; rejection of laissez-faire economics; rejection of subservience to market outcomes; universal, government-guaranteed healthcare coverage; government acknowledgment of and action on climate change; etc.
Well isn't it -- by their lights, as someone already said on this on this thread -- the end of civilization?
I remember the green Nazis in the 80's. Destroy Christianity. Time for whites to return to tradition.
Hating on Christians seems to be a thing here so consider---They are taught from little on that their world belief will allow them to see every person they love after they die in an eternal Eden, loved and cherished by their fatherly God. If you don't feel some twinge of empathy because 'oh I'm so above that nonsense' then you are no better than the worse of them.
Hating on Christians because they're not acting like Christians seems to be a thing here.
FIFY. Now bugger off, troll.
So acting like a Christian is a good thing?
So being a hypocrite is not a bad thing? Acknowledge the accuracy of what I wrote first, troll. You don't control this discussion, nor are you half as sly as you think you are.
Christ, where do these ... things, things like jvoe, get the notion they're clever? Probably from hanging around Claremont 'Christian' types, I would imagine.
I don’t feel empathy for people who believe that people they hate, people who don’t believe exactly what they believe, will burn in eternal Hell tortured by Satan for the sin of failing to pray to the proper deity in the proper manner.
Yes, it is silly. But most people cannot escape the ocean they swim in. So we should have compassion toward them. Like we would any tribe that believes silly things.
Hating them accomplishes nothing.
Notice how the troll is trying to push the idea that the other side 'hates'. Nope, all iamr4man said is that they don't feel empthathy.
God's Wounds you're clumsy.
The point I was making was that there is another side of the coin to the happy talk about seeing your dead relatives in an idyllic paradise. The part I don’t like isn’t the “I’m going to heaven” part, it’s the “and you’re not, Nyah Nyah Nyah!” part. Particularly when the emphasis is on the “Nyah Nyah Nyah”.
I hate that too, and oh the self-righteousness. But it is a form of self defense and brainwashing on their part. When I was young, I took great pleasure in poking fun of Christian beliefs. But I miss my dead family and friends and understand that fear a bit more intimately.
So I suspect that is where their defensiveness, fear, and anger come from (and of course their own fear of mortality). I get it and feel sorrow that this is wedge between me and Christian family. But I no longer poke and I no longer get angry. I surprise because I tell them I love them no matter what.
Note that English is oh-so-obviously not Ivan's first language.
Yeah, and also this:
>> most people cannot escape the ocean they swim in<<
Can’t say I’ve ever heard that one and not sure what it means. I worked with a Russian guy and he sounded very much like this guy.
Claremont!! Where all the members eyes are brown as they are full of it.
I read this article. It was definitely a must-read. But I'm surprised Kevin didn't spot the one passage that pretty much wipes out anything pseudo-reasonable that Williams had to say:
"Green: Many on the right seem to no longer believe in reality ... Does that concern you at all?"
"Williams: We believe in truth and reason. The question is whose truth and whose reason."
Ponder that last sentence.
THIS. They know _exactly_ what they are about. These aren't frozen caveman blundering about in alien, unsympathetic times.
Not so sure about their level of self-understanding. Whatever it is, at best, they're still just trying to translate what they think they're seeing into terms they can understand, and they can't, quite, because neither the bible nor its preachers tell them how. All it's got is rules, like I think you said above, and the rules don't allow them to change their minds.
Oh, I didn't say anything about self-understanding. I'm saying they know damn well that what they mean by 'the end of civilization' is considered ludicrous by most people and so they have the sense to keep it vague instead of being specific about what they really mean: the end of state-sanctioned discrimination against women, minorities, the poor in general, and those who don't hew to their view of 'Christianity'.
What Williams is saying is that they believe in truthiness (not truth).
The amazing thing is that they may not realize or recognize that there's any difference between their truthiness and truth...
I believe it was Ronald Reagan himself who demeaned such things as secular humanist moral relativism.
I bet if you asked them, they'd admit to believing that Western Civilization started falling apart with the Enlightenment.
They are not trying, because they do not want, to preserve civilization. Civilization has ended, and "conservatism" was what ended it. Because the only thing that can be conserved is privilege, "conservatism" necessarily devolves into a revolt against accountability in any form. To an infant or a peasant, all accountability is arbitrary: "rigged" and "unfair" (note how often they use those words). No one alive today was taught, or therefore can imagine, that anything better is possible or desirable.
Sounds like a 1.9 trillion dollar plan with a 2025 renewal.
Manchin will nuke the filibuster with relation to the debt ceiling......so the filibuster will die a thousand cuts.
Okey dokey.
Take them for their word: they do not believe the United States can endure unless it preserves racism, sexism, and colonialism.
I think it might be a little closer to the mark to say they will not allow the United States to endure unless it preserves racism, sexism, and colonialism. Insofar as they have the power to do so, of course.
Kevin has the tense wrong. Many if not most Trump Republicans believe liberals have already destroyed Western civilization. They believe they are engaged in a heroic, righteous struggle to reclaim it, against overwhelming odds given liberals control virtually all society's institutions.
And there's nothing conservative about them. They're radical reactionaries.
That's why they go around praising Putin and Orban. They see them as having "won" against the left.
"Radical" and "reactionary" are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The phrase "radical reactionary" makes about as much sense as "communist fascist".
https://www.backgroundbriefing.org/2021/06/01/background-briefing-june-1-2021/
Background Briefing with Ian Masters interview, June 1, 2021
Steven Levitsky, a Professor of Government at Harvard University and author with Daniel Ziblatt of How Democracies Die, joins us. We discuss the open letter at the New America Foundation he and 100 other experts on democracy signed, “Statement of Concern: The Threat to American Democracy and the Need for National Voting and Election Administration Standards”
"I think there's a deeper problem, one is that our parties have become intensely polarized, deeply, deeply polarized so you see behavior like this, a willingness to believe conspiracies, a willingness to act on those conspiracies, a willingness to violate the law, even to use violence against political rivals. [...] I think it's exacerbated in the United States case because it is an asymmetric polarization because of who the Republican party represents.
The Republican party represents the demographic group, the social and cultural group, that founded and dominated this nation for two centuries. White Christian men, in effect. And the loss not only of the electoral majority, the electoral dominance of white Christians in this country, but also the social status, the dominant social status of white Christians, which if you go back even half a century, when I was a kid, white Protestants really filled every top position in every social, political, cultural, economic hierarchy in the country. In over 50 years that's changed dramatically. That is deeply threatening. And that is fundamentally what I think is polarizing our country. There are very few societies - I can't name a single democracy in the world - that has undergone a transition in which a dominant ethnic group loses its majority and loses its dominant status. That's a major, major transformation and I think that ultimately that's what's fueling [it], exacerbated by social media, but if you want to get at the root causes, it's that transition."
Apartheid South Africa was essentially a democratically-governed colonizing power, and its colonial subjects. that happened to occupy the same territory. The Bantustan policy would have reified this in geography. Instead, it went through a transition to a far more democratic, unified state, as the dominant ethnic group lost its dominant status (though throughout, whites were always a minority).
Not really a useful analysis. Many white Christian men vote Democratic, many white women vote Republican, small minorities of people of color voted for the racist Donald Trump. People are complicated, Professor.
I DO want to destroy conservatives’ idea of “western civilization”
"This belief originated in the white evangelical community" -- this is not true. It originated with the Republican Party. The southern strategy in the 1960s, turning abortion into a wedge issue in the 1970s (the evangelicals had mostly supported Roe v Wade on women's rights grounds, and then voted for Jimmy Carter), and Gingrich declaring all-out war against the Democrats in the 90s, Grover Norquist declaring that bipartisanship is date-rape: all this, plus Fox News, led millions of Republicans to believe that the dems were evil. It did not originate with the church, though the evangelical churches have been willing participants in this jihad for decades.
"How common is this view? I can't say for sure, but I think I can say that it's not especially rare these days among conservatives. It is this kind of view, pushed down to the rank and file by Fox News, evangelical pastors, and the entire conservative media machine, that makes the right wing so dangerous these days: they are desperately afraid of what they think liberals are doing and are increasingly willing to do anything to stop it. They support Donald Trump not in spite of his all-but-open racism and stagey Christianity—which make even many Republicans cringe—but because of it."
Actually it's common, more perhaps than you think. I read one GOP politician (quoted anonymously of course) telling a reporter his constituents constantly talk about civil war in conversations with them.
In fact, there is only one governmental body that I know of which truly attempted to put textbook anti-racism into practice: the San Francisco school board. Their attempts to rename dozens of schools and eliminate entrance exams in order to force more diversity onto schools are all straight out of the anti-racist playbook. But the result is that the city of SF seems to genuinely resent that school board. A recall effort gathered 80,000 signatures and the recall vote will almost certainly kick various school board members out of office. So, the reality is that even in the country’s most liberal city, the kind of woke extremism that these conservative think tanks are worried about does not actually have much of any appeal."
This is an important point because it what is shows in my opinion is that most liberals i.e. rank n' file, ordinary citizens and such know how reign in the most extreme examples of the far Left even in the most Leftists of enclaves, because liberalism is so diverse in terms of the people who identify as such and their backgrounds, opinions and experiences. The Right had demonstrated time and time again it cannot do this or not very well or used to perhaps but cannot do so anymore. Those who stand up to the nuts are either exiled, defeated, put aside, shut their mouths and hunker down hoping it all goes away etc. and the situation continues to grow worse. But for such persons, all one can say it's their damn fault. People like Joe Biden don't make appeals to the far Left. Those on the Right, however, feel in some way they must appeal to the far Right for electoral reasons and thus when even Yankee moderate like George Bush I has to use Willie Horton to beat Mike Dukakis, then don't surprised when a David Duke shows up in the aftermath. Trump destroyed the strategy of "containment" only because the Bush-types destroyed themselves by making promises they couldn't keep.
I don't doubt the overarching claims in Kevin's piece. I've seen plenty of evidence of all that myself, but here's the thing:
There's absolutely nothing anyone on "teh left" can do to fix it. It wouldn't matter how much we changed our tune. It wouldn't matter how far to the right we moved, they'd simply move a corresponding amount farther to the right because that's what it would take to keep the rage/fear machine fueled up.
This is what American "conservatism" has become. It's literally all they have.
The question is....does that inevitably translate into a hot war?
I think there's a very small core of the right that fervently hopes so and wants that. They can't wait for the shooting to start because at that point, they'll be able to gleefully kill the blacks, browns, old, young, and basically anybody else who they can define as "other," then hide behind the faux righteous indignation.
The vast bulk of the right though, who "do the research" and engage in "independent thinking" by downloading the day's most popular memes from the echo chamber....nahhh. Those guys make good keyboard warriors but one only has to look at the Jan 6 "insurrection" to see how serious and prepared these fuckwits are. They're not. It sounds cool to participate in "the revolution" until the other side starts pushing back...then all of a sudden, it stops being fun.
Not to say we won't see violence - we will, from that tiny group way out there on the fringe, and they'll happily encourage the trogs to come out of mommy's basement and join in but even if some do, they certainly won't be very effective.
I'm not surprised that the right's core beliefs have calcified in a way that liberalism is regarded as an existential threat.
After all, my liberalism have led me to conclude (I am being serious here) that conservatives like Ryan Williams are trying to undo not only the most important elements of the American experiment, but also the constitution, the Bill of Rights, the principles of democracy, and the principles of the enlightenment.
I think the evidence for this view is far stronger than any evidence Williams can cite for the oppositive perspective.