Let Them Eat Tweets - Teri Kanefield

I finished reading “Let them Eat Tweets” by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, and Berkeley political scientist Paul Pierson.

I’m ready with a book report. (Screenshots are from the kindle version)

Spoiler: Trump and Barr are part of a democracy-smashing machine built by the GOP over the past 50 years.

The authors argue that Trump is a “consequence and recent enabler” of the GOP’s long steady march to plutocracy.

Trump distraction (according to the authors) places too much emphasis on Trump’s authoritarian impulses and misses the greater danger: The GOP that enables him:

One myth the authors torpedo: That a 2016 GOP civil war pitted Trump against the GOP “establishment,” and Trump won. Nope, they say. Trump and the “establishment” are on the same side. Initially, Trump’s refusal to hide behind euphemisms scared them, but the elected GOP officials fell in line. (Others, particularly some prominent GOP members, bolted, but the elected officials mostly did as they were told and supported Trump.)

To explain the modern GOP, the authors describe what Daniel Ziblatt calls the “Conservative dilemma,” which goes like this:

Conservatives represent the interests of a few wealthy people.
Their economic policies are unpopular.
So when more people are allowed to vote, they have a problem.

The conservative dilemma is the problem of how to win elections with policies that are unpopular and hurt the constituents. The authors call the GOP plutocrats and their goal a plutocracy.

The problem is compounded by the fact that plutocracy is incompatible with democracy. Too much income inequality kills democracy because too much power is concentrated into the hands of a few people. Currently, we have dangerous levels of income inequality.

One thing that startled me was that the authors equate conservatism with “policies that benefit the rich.” I think of conservative as “dislikes change and prefers status quo.” But the authors looked at Europe, particularly Britain and Germany after WWI, when “conservatives” represented the old aristocracy. After the industrial revolution, the GOP became the party of business tycoons and factory owners, and were anti-labor unions. So I got used to the authors’ definition.

So plutocrats have a problem: Winning elections with unpopular policies. Plutocrats have a choice:

Move to the center by agreeing to implement economic policies that benefit more people, or
Consolidate minority power so they don’t have to compromise on economic issues.

Beginning with Nixon, guess which the GOP chose:

The GOP discovered that stirring racism brought them voters. They used code words, but it worked.

The GOP formed an alliance with Fox, an outrage-producing machine. Outrage, racism, and fear can persuade people to vote for economic policies that hurt them.

Yale prof. Timothy Snyder calls it sadopopulism. It works like this:

The sadopopulist politician identifies an “enemy”
enacts policies that create pain in their own supporters
blames the pain on the “enemies,” and
presents themselves as the strongmen who can fight and defeat the enemies

At first, the Fox-GOP partnership was a boon to GOP candidates, but what the authors call “outsourcing voter mobilization” has drawbacks. Eventually, FOX exerted control over GOP officials. They were forced to cater to Fox’s demands, which forced GOP officials to adopt more extreme policies.

The GOP also outsourced voter mobilization to the NRA and white Christian evangelicals. In the 1970s, the GOP wasn’t opposed to gun regulations. That changed when it outsourced voter mobilization to the NRA. Outsourcing voter mobilization to white Christian evangelicals forced GOP to adopt extreme positions on abortion.

You see, plutocrats don’t care about gun violence or abortion rights. All they care about is money and getting more of it. So they made a bargain: We’ll get rid of gun control and abortion, and you deliver votes for our economic policies.

By outsourcing voter mobilization to outrage stoking entities, the GOP establishment found it harder to chart a moderate course. Even Romney and McCain had to make deals with the extremists.

Example, their VP choices. Also see:

As the US became less racist, and Fox was no longer able to deliver enough votes, the GOP took steps to restrict the voting rights of people outside the Fox’s clutches. The GOP thus employs gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other means of maintaining minority power.

The authors made the point that the current “polarization” is one sided. It’s caused by the GOP swing to the far right. I appreciated this because I dislike the “both sides” implication of “polarization.”

Fact: When we read books, we often feel gratified to find something we’ve always thought (but didn’t fully understand) affirmed. I’ve always felt uncomfortable with too much outrage. Here’s what the authors say:

Outrage and fear make people less willing to engage in the time-consuming, grinding work of democracy. Panic leads people to want results right now, so they are willing to jettison democratic processes. This leads to “the kind of escalation that rarely ends well.” (Phrase from Profs Ziblatt and Levitsky.)

Anyone who watched Barr’s testimony today has to be reminded of the impeachment trial, when the GOP members of Congress would defend anything Trump did.

The GOP will defend Trump and Barr because—for the most part—Trump and Barr are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do.

The solution (from the authors of Let them Eat Tweets) is political and economic reforms to weaken the disproportional clout of the plutocracy.

From me: The only way we can begin to institute those reforms is for the GOP to be swept from power in November.

This is the solution because we still have meaningful elections.

By “meaningful” I don’t mean no cheating. We’ve had voter suppression for hundreds of years. (Let me refer you to African American history, if you have doubts.)

By “meaningful” I mean that our elections are not merely ritual with the outcome predetermined. Proof: The GOP lost the midterms by 8 points and most elections since 2016.

Next on my reading lists are Norm Eisen’s book (published today) and Stuart Stevens’ book (coming next week.)