In a country in which ideas of a glorious democratic tradition feature so prominently in the collective national imagination, the fact that one of the major parties is fully committed to erecting authoritarian minority rule under a vindictive autocrat requires investigation. 2/
One way of dealing with this problem Biden has often chosen is to appeal to his fellow citizens’ patriotic sense in order to bring them back into the democratic fold. “You can’t love your country only when you win,” the president has said in multiple speeches since 2022. 3/
It’s certainly a good line. But in a rather fundamental way, it misses the point – because as the Right sees it, if they don’t win, it’s by definition not their country anymore, it’s not “America” anymore in any meaningful way. 4/
To the Right, the choice isn’t partisanship or loyalty to the country. To them, the partisan divide maps perfectly onto the struggle between patriots and “Un-American” radicals for the survival of the nation. In that sense, choosing the party is choosing the country. 5/
Another strategy of dealing with the problem of mass anti-democratic radicalization in a country that those in charge of the national story have always defined as fundamentally democratic is to declare the authoritarian movement an aberration – a departure from America’s true essence. 6/
This sentiment often crystallizes in the slogan “That’s not who we are.” And it usually comes with a hefty dose of American exceptionalism, which also shaped Biden’s previous democracy addresses and his notion of an incorruptibly democratic “soul of the nation.” 7/
If that were truly the case, why would democracy ever be in danger from within? If the exceptionalist story were correct, the conflict over democracy that defines the country wouldn’t exist, and we wouldn’t be in the precise situation Biden himself has so clearly laid out. 8/
This is where last week’s State of the Union address offered a different interpretation that might hint at a consequential shift in the liberal democratic imagination and could offer a more plausible and potentially transformative narrative of the nation’s past and present. 9/
Rather than presenting Trumpism as an aberration from America’s true nature, the president offered a crucial acknowledgment when referring to the idea that “we’re all created equal”: “We’ve never fully lived up to that idea, but we’ve never walked away from it either.” 10/
In this version, U.S. history and national identity are no longer characterized by a supposedly exceptional shared consensus around the principles of egalitarian democracy, but by an ongoing conflict over who gets to define “We, the people” – and who gets to belong. 11/
Myths of exceptionalism have often blunted the response to anti-democratic threats. But if there has always been a battle for the nation’s “soul,” we must acknowledge that those who oppose egalitarian ideals might yet triumph – as they in fact have for much of U.S. history. 12/
As long as Trump is conceptualized as merely an aberration, an accidental departure, it might seem plausible to focus on weathering the storm until things return to what they were before America took the wrong turn in 2016. But Trumpism is not simply an unfortunate departure. 13/
If the rise of Trumpism is a manifestation, rather than the cause, of forces and ideas that have always prevented the nation from living up to and realizing its truly democratic aspirations, then restoration is not enough. 14/
The Biden-led anti-MAGA coalition has brought together groups and people from a wide ideological spectrum, with vastly different ideas of what needs to be done to prevent this dark autocratic future that fall along a spectrum from mere restoration to proper transformation. 15/
Is the call to defend democracy just a fig leaf behind which a coalition of restoration is determined to merely reinstate the pre-Trump “normal”? Or is the resistance to Trumpism tied to a transformative vision that could actually move us beyond the status quo ante? 16/
Restore or transform? If Biden is right about the acute threat to freedom, the answer can’t be to merely restore the deeply deficient pre-2016 type of “liberal” democracy that resulted in Trump’s rise in the first place.
@benroyce@dangillmor Friends, Ghost has explicitly zero content moderation, so there is that. Also, with my subscriber count, I would have to pay significant monthly fees for them to host the newsletter - while I am (due to my visa status) legally barred from making any money from any of this work. That’s just not feasible, financially. I wrote about all this in detail in December. Substack, mind you, is not making a cent from my work.
@tzimmer_history@dangillmor Understood, that makes sense. I was not aware of these details from December, apologies. We do what we can do in life, and you are fighting the right fight, the target is substack, not you. And thank you again from a fan.
@tzimmer_history Ghost is a fine alternative. Another is Beehiiv. I'm paying for subscriptions on both of those platforms. I just can't bring myself to support Substack, and I regret that in cases like yours (and several other folks whose work I was subscribing to earlier). @benroyce
@dangillmor@benroyce Like I said, I would have to pay significant hosting fees at both Ghost and Beehiiv - while being legally prevented from earning even a cent from my newsletter (which is therefore entirely free).
@dangillmor@benroyce Dan, on Ghost, I am curious: Unless I misunderstand (which is totally possible!), they explicitly reject content moderation and allow everything that’s not illegal. So, what makes that a fine alternative, if the (correct!) criticism of Substack is that they platform extremists under the guise of “free speech”? I mean this as a sincere question, because I am struggling with this…
@dangillmor@benroyce I am asking specifically because my visa status will change in about a year, at which point I will be able to earn money from my public work. And at that point, the calculus changes, obviously, and platforms with significant hosting fees become viable options.
@tzimmer_history@dangillmor@benroyce I think that position was more tenable for Substance when they were not building a lot of growth and recommendation features into their platform. The platform went from neutral tool for distributing content to a network where you could have algorithmic recommendation of objectionable content next to your newsletter.
Ghost, currently is still in the domain of simple tool to send emails.
@andy@dangillmor@benroyce That is a valid point - although I will say that the vast majority of people don’t seem to interact with the platform: They subscribe (at which point Substack recommends other newsletters, absolutely!), but after that, they mostly get stuff sent via email. This isn’t the same as Ex-Twitter…
I also struggle when people tell me I’m making them “support Substack” - again, no one pays a cent for my work, meaning Substack doesn’t make any money from it either.
@tzimmer_history@dangillmor@benroyce Seems like the difference is that Ghost(Pro) provides legally minimal (not zero) content moderation because they just provide a service which people pay for. Substack refuses to moderate the content they curate because they have decided that it either 1) supports their values, 2) will provide synergistic profits, or 3) will be directly profitable.
I think twice about subbing your newsletter because I don’t want the people intending to profit from the damage to our society to even have my interest data.
If newsletter hosting is too expensive, have you considered mirroring your writing on a free blog that provides RSS so that folks can follow without incurring expense to you?