ryan cooper: I think one reason the American right is so insane is that the only actual historical conservative tradition in this country is slavery and Jim Crow, but this can't be admitted

I think one reason the American right is so insane is that the only actual historical conservative tradition in this country is slavery and Jim Crow, but this can't be admitted

Today in there’s nothing new under the sun: In 1903 a white hotel worker became a right wing celebrity for being fired after refusing to make booker t washington’s bed because he was black and a bunch of people around the country raised thousands of dollars on her behalf

in most of Europe by contrast you've got monarchy and official state religion, which while not great in themselves can be filled up with a lot of different policies

that’s it exactly bsky.app/profile/jbou...

I think this is right and made a similar observation a few years ago after they held CPAC in Hungary www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/o...

Yes. We have a king who gives speeches about the importance of social solidarity, tolerance and democracy. Weird from a hereditary position surrounded by gold and bling? Yes, but … for some a message from him works. www.brusselstimes.com/342780/king-...

King Philippe stresses need for solidarity in Christmas speechwww.brusselstimes.com The war in Ukraine, inflation and climate change were key parts of the King's speech this year.

from my seat a king is kind of silly, but if it gives a country a connection to Cherished Ancient Traditions, seems fine or even useful. not sure about the UK though lol

Being both Belgian and British and having lived in both countries the Belgian monarchy has less of a “cherished ancient traditions” sense partly because all the dukes and House of Lords stuff isn’t present. And because we’re a young country, just since 1830 and we recruited a king then.

It’s luck of the draw of course. Philippe seems very sensitive and thoughtful and his successor (his daughter Elizabeth, currently studying at Harvard) the same - but there’s no reason you might not get some total sociopath in the future. But that’s why the king swears an oath to the constitution…

Thinking about it, that’s part of it. The UK monarchy is the legal continuation of absolute rule with later parliamentary and judicial controls, with no successful revolutions or invasions to wipe the slate, which is unusual. In Belgium, the constitution is sovereign because it was written first.

But having an active monarchy still means there's no honest appraisal of how bad the bad Kings were. Visiting the royal palace you'd think the most salient thing about Leopold II was his love of trains. And Leopold III was a good dad, apparently.

I mean, you guys got an all time nightmare king in 1865. Has Leopold II legacy changed the monarchy there?

Was he important during those years Belgium couldn't form a government? He has some duties related to that process doesn't he.

something to be said for separating head of state and head of government perhaps

Doubly so regarding head of state and head of church IMHO

The UK’s tradition at best leads to a love of sausages and Corgis, yeah

I’ve always felt like the best reason to have a monarch (if that’s part of your historical tradition, though no Hohenzollerns please) is that the position ceremonial living and or “working” in one of the old royal palaces always seems far sillier.

They're like mascots there

They successfully denuded those institutions and their power is no longer in living memory. We still have Boomers that crave their childhood.

Yes! Monarchies usually have some historical (at very least) lip service (or sometimes more) to public works and services, and social supports. The *French* gave us noblesse oblige. Gives your trad plenty of noncontradictory space to imagine modern social services.

we have noblesse oblige here in the states, we call it "trickle down economics".

Nah, in Europe the conservative tradition is hostility to democracy - you can see it in elements of the elite right from time to time, like with that hilarious coup plot that was exposed in Germany.

Relatedly, when two boys raped a Jewish girl in France, it was in a wealthy center-right-voting suburb, but "the trad French elite hates Jews" is so mindblowing that everyone is pretending it's left-wing anti-Semitism.

well yes as I said, monarchy as against democracy

Yeah, but this does lead to really insane right-wing politics, including blaming the left for everything, e.g. blaming the Greens for a) mandating heat pumps and b) not installing them fast enough.

I’m not saying it’s great, just that there’s something to hook into that isn’t one of the worst crimes in history. more healthy mentally, though it’s no guarantee

The Bundeswehr's biggest base is named after Rommel, speaking of one of the worst crimes in history. Elsewhere, there's total denial of wartime collaboration; Austria is as usual the worst, with its "we were the first victims" bullshit. Then, there's Belgium's erasure of the Congo Free State...

SD Gov. Kristi Noem reminds us that, even after the removal and near extermination of indigenous peoples, they can still be maligned.

Arguably this is a problem going back to Burk et al., and is probably a mix of colonialism and the Protestant work ethic.

Most?

And yet the British Museum is stuffed full of “loot” (their word, not mine) that they refuse to give back because only they can truly value and take care of it . . .

I think this is right and made a similar observation a few years ago after they held CPAC in Hungary www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/o...

Always delighted to see a reference to Fields!

Was the American Revolution fought to displace aristocracy or replace aristocracy? (It was replace for the most part, but never so overtly as with plantation owners.)

Tech lords in the north became natural foils.

The merchant class had the notion of earning your place through work; for plantation owners, being a "gentleman" was a birthright, granted by who you were rather than what you achieved through effort. Both classes could close ranks about their right to rule, though.

So so so true

Sure. Large number of US conservatives argue for hereditary or cultural inequality of groups they look down on. They argue on principle for policies that imply superiority or inferiority. In default mode, racism denies it is racist and supports itself through allegedly egalitarian principles.

There's no basic difference between justification of economic inequality and hereditary claims. The "soft" version is that it is cultural, but not only does that fail empirically, it relies on all the same tropes as biological racism. Explaining why it is OK leaves no other option but racial blame.

I am curious what your thoughts on this monograph is. It has been tempting me on Audible www.cambridge.org/us/universit...

Masterless Men | Early republic and antebellum historywww.cambridge.org

But now many of these people are just dropping democratic pretense all together. So seems like they're letting the contradictions fall away and just embracing it.

Calhounian, not even jeffersonian or madisonian or hamiltonian

I think they're working themselves up to saying it was Good, Actually

Just like fascism is having another moment now that all the WW2 vets are dying off, we're going to hear more open calls to do Jim Crow again when the people who remember the 60s start dying

So fasism is having a renaissance 80 years after WWII. Wonder what was happening 80 years *before* WWII? Oh.

In Europe (the more relevant area I suppose) they were probably still consolidating after the whole stuff in '48 and '49.

I'm glad that's where all the right-wing extremists were.

Are we talking about the 1840s or something else here That's far enough back that the labels start getting pretty approximate.

Post