Very interesting. But I wonder if you're still not downplaying the totalitarian threat. Before Jan 6th it was tempting to see Trump as an incompetent clown wrestling with forces largely beyond his control. But imagine the Chiefs of Staff had gone along with Jan 6th and installed him as rightful President, what then? I'm no expert on Nazi history, but isn't it true that when Hitler came to power in 1933 the German General Staff were still skeptical of him, and that it was only after the Night of Long Knives in 1934, where Hitler back the army over his paramilitaries and Rohm, that the General Staff came on board and swore an oath of allegiance not to the state but to the Fuhrer? Had Trump only been a bit smarter in winning over the Chiefs of Staff, surely we would have reached a roughly analogous position to Germany in 1934?
Possibly - though MacArthurism has always been a strong current in American life. 56% of Americans say they trust the military, 10% say they trust Congress - this kind of imbalance is apt to gives soldiers ideas.
This is an excellent, thoughtful analysis, and your care and attention to both Arendt’s thought and the current situation are both much appreciated. I sometimes think Arendt’s comparatively straightforward language leads people to overlook the nuances of her thinking, but that’s very much not the case here. Great stuff.
Excellent thoughtful piece. I am going to chew on this for a while. One question: the anti democratic impulse that masqueraded as saving true democracy has been a staple of Republican right wing ideology since at least before Goldwater. Do you think this was one of the potential crystalizing forms or is this mainly for the educated parts of the party, a way to justify coup like behavior without seeming thuggish?
I think the antisemitism stuff in Arendt is also fascinating as a way to think about Trump too—her analysis of the way that antisemitism found its way into Stalinism is particularly devastating. The fact that so many hardcore Trumpists are also antisemites seemed to constantly mystify the man himself, just as it mystified many Stalinists all over the world (who denied that it was happening, kept emphasizing the rise of hitler, etc.).
I think Panovka grossly underestimates the extent to which Trump's core believers take him literally, rather than understanding his statements as strategic.
Panovka: "Trump’s loudest critics spent his time in office wringing their hands over 'alternative facts,' worshipping fact-checkers, and fetishizing factual truth—declaiming Trump as an exception and yearning for a return to normal."
vs, errr, the facts:
"the first [fact-checking] sites appeared in the United States in the early 2000s. These outlets may be based in established news organizations but also 'good government' groups, universities, and other areas of civil society."
i.e., the story that the liberal press and civil society were previously supine and only discovered their sense of outrage after Trump is itself a myth. Not totally unrelated to reality, but not the actual truth either--conveniently so.
Your analysis and histories of the left’s (and right’s) internecine intellectual conflicts are a great service. At first reading, Panovka’s piece struck me as an initiation rite into the establishment wing of the Sorelian left writer’s club. The subsequent Twitter endorsements from club grandees were telling yet expected.
Hope you continue these focused and interconnected analyses over the struggle to frame and drive our political moment.
Very interesting. But I wonder if you're still not downplaying the totalitarian threat. Before Jan 6th it was tempting to see Trump as an incompetent clown wrestling with forces largely beyond his control. But imagine the Chiefs of Staff had gone along with Jan 6th and installed him as rightful President, what then? I'm no expert on Nazi history, but isn't it true that when Hitler came to power in 1933 the German General Staff were still skeptical of him, and that it was only after the Night of Long Knives in 1934, where Hitler back the army over his paramilitaries and Rohm, that the General Staff came on board and swore an oath of allegiance not to the state but to the Fuhrer? Had Trump only been a bit smarter in winning over the Chiefs of Staff, surely we would have reached a roughly analogous position to Germany in 1934?
Well, I think the attitude of the German military was far more hostile to democracy and more sympathetic to the far right in general
Possibly - though MacArthurism has always been a strong current in American life. 56% of Americans say they trust the military, 10% say they trust Congress - this kind of imbalance is apt to gives soldiers ideas.
This is an excellent, thoughtful analysis, and your care and attention to both Arendt’s thought and the current situation are both much appreciated. I sometimes think Arendt’s comparatively straightforward language leads people to overlook the nuances of her thinking, but that’s very much not the case here. Great stuff.
Excellent thoughtful piece. I am going to chew on this for a while. One question: the anti democratic impulse that masqueraded as saving true democracy has been a staple of Republican right wing ideology since at least before Goldwater. Do you think this was one of the potential crystalizing forms or is this mainly for the educated parts of the party, a way to justify coup like behavior without seeming thuggish?
I think the antisemitism stuff in Arendt is also fascinating as a way to think about Trump too—her analysis of the way that antisemitism found its way into Stalinism is particularly devastating. The fact that so many hardcore Trumpists are also antisemites seemed to constantly mystify the man himself, just as it mystified many Stalinists all over the world (who denied that it was happening, kept emphasizing the rise of hitler, etc.).
Hey! This is really great!
I think Panovka grossly underestimates the extent to which Trump's core believers take him literally, rather than understanding his statements as strategic.
Panovka: "Trump’s loudest critics spent his time in office wringing their hands over 'alternative facts,' worshipping fact-checkers, and fetishizing factual truth—declaiming Trump as an exception and yearning for a return to normal."
vs, errr, the facts:
"the first [fact-checking] sites appeared in the United States in the early 2000s. These outlets may be based in established news organizations but also 'good government' groups, universities, and other areas of civil society."
https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-808
i.e., the story that the liberal press and civil society were previously supine and only discovered their sense of outrage after Trump is itself a myth. Not totally unrelated to reality, but not the actual truth either--conveniently so.
Your analysis and histories of the left’s (and right’s) internecine intellectual conflicts are a great service. At first reading, Panovka’s piece struck me as an initiation rite into the establishment wing of the Sorelian left writer’s club. The subsequent Twitter endorsements from club grandees were telling yet expected.
Hope you continue these focused and interconnected analyses over the struggle to frame and drive our political moment.
*for people