Richardson, it should be pointed out, is a self-appointed point person for defending the ruling elite's status quo. She is less historian than Democratic Party apologist - always read to find some past event to explain why a Democratic president ordering domestic surveillance is a Good Thing, but then worrying that the Republican president-elect may do the exact same thing only this time It Will Be Different.
This is a perspective President Obama shares. It is not that the nation has lost lost its "shared story" that worries him - it's that the American people had the temerity to choose not-Democrats to run the country the next two years.
When Richardson speaks of "democracy," if we believe all else that she writes, what she really is speaking of is not representative governance at all. The model of "democracy" that Richardson, Obama, the Washington Post, New York Times, etc., dream of is a system where an entrenched ruling class is given an imprimatur of legitimacy by token elections in which the influence and participation of the working classes is kept to the bare minimum needed to protect that thin veneer of legitimacy. This utopian view of an enlightened elite class ruling over the savages is what's leading to a certain wistful take on the long-overdue ouster of the Assad dictatorship in Syria by working-class Islamist militias this week. We're seeing headlines in the legacy media along the lines of, "Sure Assad did some bad things, but what has his overthrow unleashed?" The similarities between the media's coverage of the Assad overthrow and the Trump election are frankly a bit creepy.
Our truly shared national story is the one you describe - original sin giving way to an ever more perfect union, the first nation founded on an ideal rather than shared DNA, a national story of continual redemption and renewal.
The abandonment of the Democratic Party by Hispanic and African-American voters is particularly galling to establishment types like Richardson who still see emancipation as a gift from the good whites, and not as an act of self-liberation.
Thanks. I do think, and have said to friends, that Professor Richardson underestimates the self-emancipation factor in the political evolution of emancipation during the war.
But I want to ask you what I call the Rosetta Stone question about the Trump era. I’ve never seen an answer to the Rosetta Stone question that wasn’t revealing. Here it is: Who won the 2020 presidential election?
Rorschach involves subjective perceptions of inkblots. The Rosetta Stone involved carvings that objectively enabled scholars to interpret ancient Egyptian texts.
The Rosetta Stone question for the Trump era--Who won the 2020 election?--enables anybody to discern an answerer's overall outlook on Mr. Trump's legitimacy as what you call presidential, and on the dishonesty (or deludedness) of election denial.
Since most people prefer not to be outright dishonest, and since most people know how preposterous the Big Election Lie was and still is, few people in my experience answer by declaring outright that Mr. Biden lost the 2020 election. But many answer the Rosetta Stone question by weaseling that golly, there were many irregularities in the key states' voting processes. It's a way of suggesting doubt without outright stating a falsehood. I've seen other answers too--for example, the change of the subject to criticisms of Mr. Biden. To me, those can have some validity, but they're still weasely evasions as answers to the question.
I'm familiar with both the the Rorschach Test and the Rosetta Stone, but had never before encountered the Rosetta Stone analogy you posed. That is an interesting thought exercise.
I don't know that even most MAGA conservatives really believe he lost the election in 2020 - I think that argument is their way of expressing deep distrust of the ruling elites, including the national media and academia. And I think that distrust was reflected in the recent electoral results.
I'm not familiar with Richardson's academic work, only her posts on Substack.
After a delay, I have come back to note something about the phrase “Maga conservatives.” It’s an oxymoron. There is nothing remotely conservative about people who not only countenance, but support, a violent, police-officer-injuring attempt to subvert America’s peaceful transfer of power.
But I agree if you are implying that only a few of them actually believe the Big Election Lie. The abomination of their continual post-truth dishonesty is not remotely conservative either.
Richardson, it should be pointed out, is a self-appointed point person for defending the ruling elite's status quo. She is less historian than Democratic Party apologist - always read to find some past event to explain why a Democratic president ordering domestic surveillance is a Good Thing, but then worrying that the Republican president-elect may do the exact same thing only this time It Will Be Different.
This is a perspective President Obama shares. It is not that the nation has lost lost its "shared story" that worries him - it's that the American people had the temerity to choose not-Democrats to run the country the next two years.
When Richardson speaks of "democracy," if we believe all else that she writes, what she really is speaking of is not representative governance at all. The model of "democracy" that Richardson, Obama, the Washington Post, New York Times, etc., dream of is a system where an entrenched ruling class is given an imprimatur of legitimacy by token elections in which the influence and participation of the working classes is kept to the bare minimum needed to protect that thin veneer of legitimacy. This utopian view of an enlightened elite class ruling over the savages is what's leading to a certain wistful take on the long-overdue ouster of the Assad dictatorship in Syria by working-class Islamist militias this week. We're seeing headlines in the legacy media along the lines of, "Sure Assad did some bad things, but what has his overthrow unleashed?" The similarities between the media's coverage of the Assad overthrow and the Trump election are frankly a bit creepy.
Our truly shared national story is the one you describe - original sin giving way to an ever more perfect union, the first nation founded on an ideal rather than shared DNA, a national story of continual redemption and renewal.
The abandonment of the Democratic Party by Hispanic and African-American voters is particularly galling to establishment types like Richardson who still see emancipation as a gift from the good whites, and not as an act of self-liberation.
Thanks. I do think, and have said to friends, that Professor Richardson underestimates the self-emancipation factor in the political evolution of emancipation during the war.
But I want to ask you what I call the Rosetta Stone question about the Trump era. I’ve never seen an answer to the Rosetta Stone question that wasn’t revealing. Here it is: Who won the 2020 presidential election?
Did you mean Rorschach test, rather than Rosetta Stone?
Rorschach involves subjective perceptions of inkblots. The Rosetta Stone involved carvings that objectively enabled scholars to interpret ancient Egyptian texts.
The Rosetta Stone question for the Trump era--Who won the 2020 election?--enables anybody to discern an answerer's overall outlook on Mr. Trump's legitimacy as what you call presidential, and on the dishonesty (or deludedness) of election denial.
Since most people prefer not to be outright dishonest, and since most people know how preposterous the Big Election Lie was and still is, few people in my experience answer by declaring outright that Mr. Biden lost the 2020 election. But many answer the Rosetta Stone question by weaseling that golly, there were many irregularities in the key states' voting processes. It's a way of suggesting doubt without outright stating a falsehood. I've seen other answers too--for example, the change of the subject to criticisms of Mr. Biden. To me, those can have some validity, but they're still weasely evasions as answers to the question.
Thanks for your forthright answer.
Note to onlookers: I agree with the commenter that Professor Richardson defends liberal policies and ideology. But I disagree if his opening lines are questioning her status as a professional historian. See https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/morrissey/departments/history/people/faculty-directory/heather-cox-richardson.html.
I'm familiar with both the the Rorschach Test and the Rosetta Stone, but had never before encountered the Rosetta Stone analogy you posed. That is an interesting thought exercise.
I don't know that even most MAGA conservatives really believe he lost the election in 2020 - I think that argument is their way of expressing deep distrust of the ruling elites, including the national media and academia. And I think that distrust was reflected in the recent electoral results.
I'm not familiar with Richardson's academic work, only her posts on Substack.
After a delay, I have come back to note something about the phrase “Maga conservatives.” It’s an oxymoron. There is nothing remotely conservative about people who not only countenance, but support, a violent, police-officer-injuring attempt to subvert America’s peaceful transfer of power.
But I agree if you are implying that only a few of them actually believe the Big Election Lie. The abomination of their continual post-truth dishonesty is not remotely conservative either.
No. Not remotely.
More later, when I get to my real computer. Thanks.
President Biden. Or, perhaps former President Trump lost it by not shutting up long enough to act presidential.