Thomas Zimmer

The Civil Rights Act *not* as the culmination of noble egalitarian ambitions but as a fateful turn in the wrong direction: That is the defining position on today’s political Right far beyond the rabid MAGA base. On January 20, those who explicitly reject the creedal national identity came to power.

What Is America, and for Whom? A white Christian ethno-state with strict hierarchies or a pluralistic democracy with egalitarian aspirations? American society has always been divided over what this country should strive to be

The audio version of the piece is up. Hopefully makes it a little more accessible and digestible.
 
What Is America, and for Whom?
 
A reflection on how to situate the Trumpist moment in U.S. history:

Das ist sehr nett, vielen Dank! 🙏

The Trumpists didn’t depart from a previously stable democratic consensus. They represent the radical wing of a rightwing coalition that was never on board with egalitarian goals and democratic pluralism.

They believe any measure – no matter how extreme – is now justified to defend “real America.”

The overarching goal is to restore white male domination in all spheres of life and recenter the social and political order around strict hierarchies of race, gender, religion and wealth - as opposed to equality and egalitarian principles.

The Trumpist regime’s core project is fueled by a very old ethno-nationalist vision: Redefine citizenship, redraw the boundaries of who gets to belong, roll back the post-1960s civil rights regime, nullify the very foundations of pluralistic democracy rooted in the Reconstruction amendments.

The Civil Rights Act *not* as the culmination of noble egalitarian ambitions but as a fateful turn in the wrong direction: That is the defining position on today’s political Right far beyond the rabid MAGA base. On January 20, those who explicitly reject the creedal national identity came to power.

A much more plausible interpretation is that America did not reach a consensus about what this nation should be in the 1960s. Instead, the forces who rejected the vision of egalitarian pluralism have engaged in a comprehensive counter-mobilization by movement conservatism.

But if the stories we tell about the past could not have plausibly led to the present we are experiencing, we have a problem. This is one of those cases: In order to get from that tale to where we are now, one would have to conceptualize Trumpism as an aberration, an accidental departure.

According to the dominant mainstream narrative, the civil rights legislation took the question of whether or not America was supposed to be a pluralistic democracy off the table: The nation proceeded on the basis of a democratic consensus, confining those who rejected it to the fringes of society.

A hierarchical ethno-state dominated by white Christians or a pluralistic democracy with sincere egalitarian aspirations? That conflict was not resolved in 1776. It wasn’t settled in 1865. And unfortunately, the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t usher in democratic consensus either.

America has always conceived of itself as a democracy. This has obscured the fact that a variety of different regimes, of competing social and political orders, of incompatible visions of what the country should be, have existed side by side throughout the nation’s history.

What Is America, and for Whom? A white Christian ethno-state with strict hierarchies or a pluralistic democracy with egalitarian aspirations? American society has always been divided over what this country should strive to be

Sunday Reading: What Is America, and for Whom?

I wrote about how to situate our Trumpist moment in U.S. history – sparked by a question I have been getting constantly in recent months: “Why is America suddenly so divided?”

The thing is: Division is the historical norm. We need to start there.

What Is America, and for Whom? A white Christian ethno-state with strict hierarchies or a pluralistic democracy with egalitarian aspirations? American society has always been divided over what this country should strive to be

The audio version of the piece is up. Hopefully makes it a little more accessible and digestible.
 
What Is America, and for Whom?
 
A reflection on how to situate the Trumpist moment in U.S. history:

Will talk about radicalization/continuity in Part II. Certainly a significant radicalization in and since the 90s - but not an aberration.

The key is to break open blanket terms like “democracy” so that more people understand it is not simply a yes/no proposition, but has encompassed a wide range of different regimes, some of them not very democratic at all, certainly not if we demand substantive commitments to pluralism and equality.

Why has the Right radicalized so much recently? What characterized previous moments when a democratic leap was achieved, and what can they teach us about the chances of transformational progress in a divided society?

Questions for Part II of this reflection on Trumpism in history - coming soon.

So kind, Lauren - it really means a lot to me. Thank you! 🙏

America has always conceived of itself as a democracy. This has obscured the fact that a variety of different regimes, of competing social and political orders, of incompatible visions of what the country should be, have existed side by side throughout the nation’s history.

The Trumpists didn’t depart from a previously stable democratic consensus. They represent the radical wing of a rightwing coalition that was never on board with egalitarian principles and democratic pluralism to begin with.

Democracy Americana is back!

After a hiatus far too long, I wrote about how to situate our Trumpist moment in U.S. history – and why we need to start from the realization that division has been the historical norm, and we are experiencing the latest iteration of a very old struggle.

As their vision of an ethno-state dominated by wealthy white Christian men has come under pressure, they believe any measure – regardless of how extreme – is now justified.
 
The conflict that shapes America today is the latest iteration of a very old struggle.

The Trumpists didn’t depart from a previously stable democratic consensus. They represent the radical wing of a rightwing coalition that was never on board with egalitarian principles and democratic pluralism to begin with.

The overarching goal: Restore white male domination in all spheres of life and recenter the social and political order around strict hierarchies of race, gender, religion and wealth as opposed to equality and egalitarian principles.

The Trumpist regime’s core project is fueled by a very old ethno-nationalist vision: Redefine citizenship, redraw the boundaries of who gets to belong, roll back the post-1960s civil rights regime, nullify the very foundations of pluralistic democracy rooted in the Reconstruction amendments.

But America did not reach a consensus about what this nation should be in the 1960s. The forces who rejected the vision of egalitarian pluralism, they were not confined and condemned to an existence on the fringes of society. They have engaged in a comprehensive counter-mobilization.

I think it is fair to say that those who passed the civil rights legislation intended it to be a definitive answer to the question of whether or not the United States was supposed to be a pluralistic democracy at all: They sought to take that question off the table.

A hierarchical ethno-state dominated by white Christians or a pluralistic democracy with egalitarian aspirations? That conflict was not resolved in 1776. It wasn’t settled in 1865. Unfortunately, the passing of the civil rights legislation in the 1960s didn’t usher in democratic consensus either.

America has conceived of itself as a democracy since the beginning. This has obscured the fact that a variety of different regimes, of competing social and political orders, of incompatible visions of what the country should be, have existed side by side throughout the nation’s history.

I wrote about how to situate our Trumpist moment in U.S. history – sparked a question I have been getting constantly in recent months is: “Why is America suddenly so divided?” The thing is: Division is the historical norm. We need to start there.