One really distinct american political dynamic of the last decade or two is liberals caring about the norms of civil discourse while the far right succeeds in its wildest dreams by ignoring them. There's no referee to call when they do that, there's no virtue in losing civil rights but keeping the moral high ground.
Is that what has actually happened? One can point to plenty of liberals/progressives defying those norms, and plenty of conservatives respecting them. Both “sides” contain civil and uncivil people; claims that one side is worse than the other rely heavily on ignoring the faults of one’s preferred side while highlighting those of the other
I also don’t agree that the “far right succeeds in its wildest dreams”-I think that kind of talk relies on nonsensically grouping together Clarence Thomas with David Duke, Trump-supporting Orthodox Jews [0] with neo-Nazi antisemites such as Andrew Anglin
Yes that is what happened. Major revanchist victories across wide swathes of cultural and civil advances: abortion, queer rights & safety, affirmative action, retributive justice system. Adhering to civil norms in this context is itself a fault, that's my point. To the extent democrats are my preferred "side" I condemn them for this.
Why is it nonsensical to group thomas and duke? Because thomas is black? To the extent they share values and goals and are acting on and succeeding in them it absolutely makes sense to group them. It doesn't mean I think they are friends, but I am acknowledging domains where they work towards the same ends.
> Yes that is what happened. Major revanchist victories across wide swathes of cultural and civil advances: abortion, queer rights & safety, affirmative action, retributive justice system. Adhering to civil norms in this context is itself a fault, that's my point. To the extent democrats are my preferred "side" I condemn them for this.
Okay, but you spoke of "liberals caring about the norms of civil discourse while the far right succeeds... by ignoring them". Now you seem to be saying something different – that norms of civil discourse don't matter, only the outcomes do.
You obviously don't agree with the opinions of the conservative SCOTUS majority, but they are all very civil in how they talk and write. I don't think it is fair to accuse them of ignoring the norms of civil discourse
> Why is it nonsensical to group thomas and duke? Because thomas is black? To the extent they share values and goals and are acting on and succeeding in them it absolutely makes sense to group them. It doesn't mean I think they are friends, but I am acknowledging domains where they work towards the same ends.
It is nonsensical to group them because their values and goals and ends are very different.
In Thomas' brief dissent in Lawrence v Texas [0], he said that although he did not agree with the majority that Texas' sodomy law was unconstitutional, he thought it was "uncommonly silly" (quoting Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold) and "If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it". Do you think if David Duke were a Texas state legislator (actually he was one in Louisiana from 1989–1992) he would have voted to repeal its sodomy law? I really doubt that.
Duke is pro-Nazi and pro-KKK (indeed, he used to be the leader of a faction of the KKK); there is zero evidence that Thomas has any sympathy for Nazism or the KKK. Duke says virulently antisemitic things all the time; when did Thomas ever say anything like that? His critics point to a 1981 speech in which he praised Louis Farrakhan – however, he was praising Farrakhan's teachings on Black empowerment, not his Jew hatred (in any event, that was over 40 years ago; when was the last time Duke said something antisemitic? probably today)
These are just a few of the reasons why Duke is accurately called "far right", but Thomas isn't "far right", he's just "right".
