Pretty much on target, as usual. I'm old enough to remember the right-wing craziness of years past. You left out "Remember the Pueblo!" among many other demented fantasies. On the other hand, you ignore the left-wing crazies. Perhaps they really are fewer, or less crazy, or less dangerous, but it might also reflect the powerful influence of one's cultural environment. A significant element of the Democratic party used to be pro-Stalin, and I remember the bitter arguments from the early 1970s between Progressive Labor and the Weathermen on how best to promote the Revolution. The contemporary focus on Kendi's antiracism, the widely-disliked (amongst the Hispanic-American community) term "Latinx," and other follies are perhaps less malignant but in my opinion just about as nutty as many of the goofier beliefs widespread amongst Republicans.
I marched amidst clouds of tear gas in the streets of Chicago in 1968 to protest against the corrupt Democratic party. I now think I was wrong, and have come to see the primary system as a major part of the problem. Healthy liberal democracy in the US requires some kind of tweaking of the electoral system to stop rewarding extremists.
Kooks have always been with us, but in the past they stuck sharing their crazy conspiracies over a beer in the local watering hole. The internet has allowed all these kooks to feed off each other, and now... vote for a fellow kook.
It really sucks as a sane person with a maverick conservative streak. I feel orphaned.
Quite frankly the insane rhetoric has driven me to read more and more reasonable progressive writers (like Matt here. Also Noah Smith).
Slowly turning me into a Democrat.
I openly hope the Republican Party splits. Let the insane people go off on their own. Let me find a home in a center party.
Happy Wednesday. I’m on another plane. This time to a solar power plant in California. I need a vaccine.
Good post as always, and I love reading your stuff.
But, I am not gonna lie to you Matt, the increasing number of disingenuous edgy "principled" conservatives in the comments section are killing my vibe. I am getting an internet circa 2010 vibe sometimes here, and not in a good way.
I used to tell my friends who take in conservative media that outright lies aren't the problem. The biggest problems are (a) the information that they will simply prevent you from encountering, which would help make informed decisions and (b) they will not walk back badly incorrect stories, they simply drop them, and the audience continues thinking that those stories had some validity.
Our team has developed these problems, outlets previously seen as above reproach or nearly so. I think this is already leading to a huge increase in conspiratorial thinking, and it's only going to get worse.
At a certain point, I stopped paying close attention to the Russia story, deciding that I would dig in after Mueller issued findings (with a few exceptions, I read the New Yorker most weeks, for instance). After the IG and Senate findings, I went back through the reporting on the topic. It's really, really awful. Horrifying actually. If the media and government officials behaved that way toward a politician that I *didn't* hate, I'm sure that I would also be looking for conspiracies around every corner. I wonder if non-conservative media will ever reckon with the facts and implications of that story. In 10 years, after Trump is no longer a threat? Maybe?
The only people who got that story right have been ostracized. At that point I began walking back other stories, out of curiosity, and my entire information ecosystem (NY Times, WaPo, etc) had the same problems that I've described in my opening paragraph. I find myself walking stories all the way back to primary sources, where available, like I have to be an independent news organization.
Conspiratorial thinking is growing and here to stay. I feel like *I* am engaging in it, by saying these things, and trusting no one fully. I wish I could still identify it as exclusively a "conservative" problem.
I recall, as a child in a small southern town, worrying about if a friend of mine could go to heaven because he told me his parents voted for Clinton. Based on what I knew at the time, your immortal soul was very much tied to whether you supported the Republican candidate for President or not. That seems like an insane thing now but there are people I grew up with that still believe that. This is an ideology that cuts both deep and across several closely held belief systems. I have no clue how to fix it, I’m just glad I’m not longer a part of it.
Would respectfully disagree here. While certainly true that all the fringe elements you described have had some sway within the conservative movement over the years, they haven't defined it.
My (admittedly elitist) view is that complex policy thinking is hard, and for that reason it is often mixed with baser elements to navigate the world of politics. This is certainly not unique to the right. Last summer's "defund the police" is only the most readily-available example of asinine thinking serving as a political tool for pursuing a policy agenda - and then overtaking that agenda to fail miserably. And we can't pretend that elite institutions of center-left thinking didn't embrace it, either. I see little difference between that and WFB flirting with McCarthyism.
The issue with Trump is that the monkeys have come to run the circus. It's always been the case that good policy thinking doesn't fit on a protest sign - but under Trump the people who were only capable of articulating thoughts simple enough to adorn protest signs became the policy makers.
This is due to the weakness of parties as institutions. Largely because of our unique (and awful) system of primaries, the parties have virtually no control over their platforms. Case in point - the GOP didn't even have a platform last cycle, and the #2 finisher in each of the past two Democratic primaries was not even a registered Democrat.
I think there's an argument to be made that the stuff the right wing crazies believe has gotten even crazier in the age of social media. It was crazy to think Eisenhower was a secret communist, or that Obama was born in Kenya, but communism and Kenya are at least both real things.
There are now two members of congress who have openly expressed belief in QAnon. Lauren Boebert is the harder of the two to get a read on, and she may just be a cynical creep who saw that there was a political opportunity in embracing this stuff, but Marjorie Taylor Greene is an honest-to-god true believer.
She is *on video* talking about some of the very craziest parts of the QAnon mythology, like the belief that members of the satanist cabal (i.e. many of her new coworkers!) torture and kill children in order to extract adrenochrome from their blood, which in QAnon lore is both a psychoactive drug and some kind of youth serum.
It's difficult to estimate the percentage of Republicans who believe in QAnon at this point, but it's a large minority. If you're familiar with their symbols and slogans you will start to see them everywhere. Now, some of that is just a frequency illusion, but some of the places where unambiguous QAnon stuff is showing up should be extremely concerning to people.
The head of the NYC Sergeants Benevolent Association appeared on TV repeatedly this summer with a QAnon mug behind him, carefully turned to be visible to the camera. And it wasn't even a big story! Largely because normal people just don't know how crazy this stuff is. We've had cases all over the country of cops being caught wearing QAnon swag on the job or expressing QAnon belief on social media, and departments mostly seem to treat these cases as relatively minor incidents of an officer being "too political" while on duty.
These are people who think there are tunnels full of "mole children" under Central Park! Who think Hillary Clinton *literally* eats babies! This stuff should be as disqualifying from any position of public responsibility as would belief in Islamic State-style jihadism.
I suspect the basic problem here is that the democratic process doesn't distinguish between moderates and extremists. Every vote is the same as every other vote, and you need as many as you can get if you want to win elections or pass legislation. As a Republican, then, it's in your best interest (at least in the short term) to be tolerant of right-wing extremists, because you need them to vote for you rather than going off to put their energy and votes into a new fringe party of their own. And the same is true for Democrats regarding left-wing extremists.
It's possible that ranked-choice voting could help with this problem, since it would allow the extremists to start their own nutjob party and make it their first choice, while making one of the major parties their second choice. But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want ranked-choice voting because it would destroy their argument that voting for a third party is "just throwing away your vote."
Meh. On the other side of the coin we see Democratic Party politicians playing footsie with the likes of Louis Farrakhan and the badly misplaced trust in the contents of the Steele Dossier.
All politics has always intermingled freely with fringe nonsense, and both parties are growing more extreme. Biden is the moderate Democrat, but he's to the left of Bill Clinton, and his administration will be to the left of Obama's (though he himself may not be on a personal level). There will be no firewall between responsible Democrats and nutty communists and identitarians.
All true. But I feel it's incomplete. By focusing only on the Right, you are implicitly stating that the Left does not have a similar dynamic at play.
This POV won't be super popular here I'm sure, but what of the Left's the fantasies of "just put poor people in public housing - that will solve the problem of poverty!" to the Left Woke's assertion that "everything in our country is the result of a race-based statement of political power."
Fantasies of an idyllic world live on both sides of the ideological spectrum. We can argue and debate which are more harmful, and we should. If we did, that would be a wonderful, old-school, and refreshing example of political debate... vs. political warfare, where we denigrate our enemies as existential threats.
This post paints the Conservative side as a more dire threat to our republic. And that may be the case at this very point in time. But each side has its own crazies, blind spots, and areas of excellence. Effective governance is about leveraging the right bits from the right side at the right moment.
We just need to stop vilifying the other - in this case, the Right. The Left is arguably the more ideal side to start this trend.
I met a Bircher at an ice cream social in college back in the 1980s. His immediate gambit was to explain how they aren't as crazy as people claim they are. Nowadays he would be a RINO.
I do not think, however, that it is just or primarily the nationalized/polarized nature of the electorate that gives room for the crazies on the right to have so much power. I really think, boringly enough, that a lot of it is actually just Donald Trump. The crank elements of the conservative movement percolate in the swamp of Republican politics all the time, but Trump activated them in a way that raised their prominence and gave a blessing for elevating them further.
For example, much as I loathe George W. Bush and decry the horrible policies of his administration, this was not an issue during his two terms. Perhaps we are more polarized now, but I recall that we were pretty polarized then as well. But the very worst elements of the conservative movement/Republican base were held at bay because the Republican power holders, though corrupt, didn't give those elements nearly as much oxygen.
Basically, there are latent elements of craziness throughout American society, and not all on the right. It takes actions by the leadership to activate them and unleash their force.
This is quickly becoming my favorite read every morning while I hastily suck down coffee before my 5-month-old daughter wakes up. Thanks, Matt!
Pretty much on target, as usual. I'm old enough to remember the right-wing craziness of years past. You left out "Remember the Pueblo!" among many other demented fantasies. On the other hand, you ignore the left-wing crazies. Perhaps they really are fewer, or less crazy, or less dangerous, but it might also reflect the powerful influence of one's cultural environment. A significant element of the Democratic party used to be pro-Stalin, and I remember the bitter arguments from the early 1970s between Progressive Labor and the Weathermen on how best to promote the Revolution. The contemporary focus on Kendi's antiracism, the widely-disliked (amongst the Hispanic-American community) term "Latinx," and other follies are perhaps less malignant but in my opinion just about as nutty as many of the goofier beliefs widespread amongst Republicans.
I marched amidst clouds of tear gas in the streets of Chicago in 1968 to protest against the corrupt Democratic party. I now think I was wrong, and have come to see the primary system as a major part of the problem. Healthy liberal democracy in the US requires some kind of tweaking of the electoral system to stop rewarding extremists.
Kooks have always been with us, but in the past they stuck sharing their crazy conspiracies over a beer in the local watering hole. The internet has allowed all these kooks to feed off each other, and now... vote for a fellow kook.
It really sucks as a sane person with a maverick conservative streak. I feel orphaned.
Quite frankly the insane rhetoric has driven me to read more and more reasonable progressive writers (like Matt here. Also Noah Smith).
Slowly turning me into a Democrat.
I openly hope the Republican Party splits. Let the insane people go off on their own. Let me find a home in a center party.
Happy Wednesday. I’m on another plane. This time to a solar power plant in California. I need a vaccine.
Good post as always, and I love reading your stuff.
But, I am not gonna lie to you Matt, the increasing number of disingenuous edgy "principled" conservatives in the comments section are killing my vibe. I am getting an internet circa 2010 vibe sometimes here, and not in a good way.
I used to tell my friends who take in conservative media that outright lies aren't the problem. The biggest problems are (a) the information that they will simply prevent you from encountering, which would help make informed decisions and (b) they will not walk back badly incorrect stories, they simply drop them, and the audience continues thinking that those stories had some validity.
Our team has developed these problems, outlets previously seen as above reproach or nearly so. I think this is already leading to a huge increase in conspiratorial thinking, and it's only going to get worse.
At a certain point, I stopped paying close attention to the Russia story, deciding that I would dig in after Mueller issued findings (with a few exceptions, I read the New Yorker most weeks, for instance). After the IG and Senate findings, I went back through the reporting on the topic. It's really, really awful. Horrifying actually. If the media and government officials behaved that way toward a politician that I *didn't* hate, I'm sure that I would also be looking for conspiracies around every corner. I wonder if non-conservative media will ever reckon with the facts and implications of that story. In 10 years, after Trump is no longer a threat? Maybe?
The only people who got that story right have been ostracized. At that point I began walking back other stories, out of curiosity, and my entire information ecosystem (NY Times, WaPo, etc) had the same problems that I've described in my opening paragraph. I find myself walking stories all the way back to primary sources, where available, like I have to be an independent news organization.
Conspiratorial thinking is growing and here to stay. I feel like *I* am engaging in it, by saying these things, and trusting no one fully. I wish I could still identify it as exclusively a "conservative" problem.
Republican presidential nominees of the past x years ranked by craziness highest to lowest.
Donald Trump
Barry Goldwater
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
John McCain
George H. W. Bush
Bob Dole
Mitt Romney
Gerald Ford
For the most part there is a clear correlation between craziness and electibility. The market has spoken.
I recall, as a child in a small southern town, worrying about if a friend of mine could go to heaven because he told me his parents voted for Clinton. Based on what I knew at the time, your immortal soul was very much tied to whether you supported the Republican candidate for President or not. That seems like an insane thing now but there are people I grew up with that still believe that. This is an ideology that cuts both deep and across several closely held belief systems. I have no clue how to fix it, I’m just glad I’m not longer a part of it.
Would respectfully disagree here. While certainly true that all the fringe elements you described have had some sway within the conservative movement over the years, they haven't defined it.
My (admittedly elitist) view is that complex policy thinking is hard, and for that reason it is often mixed with baser elements to navigate the world of politics. This is certainly not unique to the right. Last summer's "defund the police" is only the most readily-available example of asinine thinking serving as a political tool for pursuing a policy agenda - and then overtaking that agenda to fail miserably. And we can't pretend that elite institutions of center-left thinking didn't embrace it, either. I see little difference between that and WFB flirting with McCarthyism.
The issue with Trump is that the monkeys have come to run the circus. It's always been the case that good policy thinking doesn't fit on a protest sign - but under Trump the people who were only capable of articulating thoughts simple enough to adorn protest signs became the policy makers.
This is due to the weakness of parties as institutions. Largely because of our unique (and awful) system of primaries, the parties have virtually no control over their platforms. Case in point - the GOP didn't even have a platform last cycle, and the #2 finisher in each of the past two Democratic primaries was not even a registered Democrat.
So what's the answer?
I think there's an argument to be made that the stuff the right wing crazies believe has gotten even crazier in the age of social media. It was crazy to think Eisenhower was a secret communist, or that Obama was born in Kenya, but communism and Kenya are at least both real things.
There are now two members of congress who have openly expressed belief in QAnon. Lauren Boebert is the harder of the two to get a read on, and she may just be a cynical creep who saw that there was a political opportunity in embracing this stuff, but Marjorie Taylor Greene is an honest-to-god true believer.
She is *on video* talking about some of the very craziest parts of the QAnon mythology, like the belief that members of the satanist cabal (i.e. many of her new coworkers!) torture and kill children in order to extract adrenochrome from their blood, which in QAnon lore is both a psychoactive drug and some kind of youth serum.
It's difficult to estimate the percentage of Republicans who believe in QAnon at this point, but it's a large minority. If you're familiar with their symbols and slogans you will start to see them everywhere. Now, some of that is just a frequency illusion, but some of the places where unambiguous QAnon stuff is showing up should be extremely concerning to people.
The head of the NYC Sergeants Benevolent Association appeared on TV repeatedly this summer with a QAnon mug behind him, carefully turned to be visible to the camera. And it wasn't even a big story! Largely because normal people just don't know how crazy this stuff is. We've had cases all over the country of cops being caught wearing QAnon swag on the job or expressing QAnon belief on social media, and departments mostly seem to treat these cases as relatively minor incidents of an officer being "too political" while on duty.
These are people who think there are tunnels full of "mole children" under Central Park! Who think Hillary Clinton *literally* eats babies! This stuff should be as disqualifying from any position of public responsibility as would belief in Islamic State-style jihadism.
I suspect the basic problem here is that the democratic process doesn't distinguish between moderates and extremists. Every vote is the same as every other vote, and you need as many as you can get if you want to win elections or pass legislation. As a Republican, then, it's in your best interest (at least in the short term) to be tolerant of right-wing extremists, because you need them to vote for you rather than going off to put their energy and votes into a new fringe party of their own. And the same is true for Democrats regarding left-wing extremists.
It's possible that ranked-choice voting could help with this problem, since it would allow the extremists to start their own nutjob party and make it their first choice, while making one of the major parties their second choice. But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want ranked-choice voting because it would destroy their argument that voting for a third party is "just throwing away your vote."
Meh. On the other side of the coin we see Democratic Party politicians playing footsie with the likes of Louis Farrakhan and the badly misplaced trust in the contents of the Steele Dossier.
A pox on both their houses, I say.
All politics has always intermingled freely with fringe nonsense, and both parties are growing more extreme. Biden is the moderate Democrat, but he's to the left of Bill Clinton, and his administration will be to the left of Obama's (though he himself may not be on a personal level). There will be no firewall between responsible Democrats and nutty communists and identitarians.
All true. But I feel it's incomplete. By focusing only on the Right, you are implicitly stating that the Left does not have a similar dynamic at play.
This POV won't be super popular here I'm sure, but what of the Left's the fantasies of "just put poor people in public housing - that will solve the problem of poverty!" to the Left Woke's assertion that "everything in our country is the result of a race-based statement of political power."
Fantasies of an idyllic world live on both sides of the ideological spectrum. We can argue and debate which are more harmful, and we should. If we did, that would be a wonderful, old-school, and refreshing example of political debate... vs. political warfare, where we denigrate our enemies as existential threats.
This post paints the Conservative side as a more dire threat to our republic. And that may be the case at this very point in time. But each side has its own crazies, blind spots, and areas of excellence. Effective governance is about leveraging the right bits from the right side at the right moment.
We just need to stop vilifying the other - in this case, the Right. The Left is arguably the more ideal side to start this trend.
I met a Bircher at an ice cream social in college back in the 1980s. His immediate gambit was to explain how they aren't as crazy as people claim they are. Nowadays he would be a RINO.
Excellent, thoughtful essay.
I do not think, however, that it is just or primarily the nationalized/polarized nature of the electorate that gives room for the crazies on the right to have so much power. I really think, boringly enough, that a lot of it is actually just Donald Trump. The crank elements of the conservative movement percolate in the swamp of Republican politics all the time, but Trump activated them in a way that raised their prominence and gave a blessing for elevating them further.
For example, much as I loathe George W. Bush and decry the horrible policies of his administration, this was not an issue during his two terms. Perhaps we are more polarized now, but I recall that we were pretty polarized then as well. But the very worst elements of the conservative movement/Republican base were held at bay because the Republican power holders, though corrupt, didn't give those elements nearly as much oxygen.
Basically, there are latent elements of craziness throughout American society, and not all on the right. It takes actions by the leadership to activate them and unleash their force.