You can hear and read her saying it in the New York Times podcast here, in response to a question about the 22 minute mark, and also, more briefly, on National Public Radio here.
"And it’s now sort of forgotten because so many things have happened, that this was the moment when he really broke into national politics was by being the kind of the loudest spokesman for birtherism. And what was birtherism? It was the argument that the president of the United States is illegitimate. He’s not even American. And this argument had a tremendous amount of power and was believed by an enormous number of people. I saw a statistic once, it’s between 20 percent and 30 percent of Americans believed this to be true. Now, think about what that means. If the president is illegitimate, that means that everybody — the media, the courts, the Congress, the civil service — everybody is lying to you. So the entire state is covering up this fact that the president is an illegal outsider and should not be president at all. If you believe that, OK, then you are ready for all kinds of radical changes and all kinds of radical politics because you have come to doubt all of the institutions of your democracy."
Applebaum has been around for awhile, writing history (Gulag: A History) and columns, mostly for The Washington Post. She is currently promoting her new book, Twilight of Democracy, in which she looks at how conservatives went from defending democracy in Hungary and Poland (and the United States) to embracing empty-headed strong, noisy leaders.
It would be too reductionist to believe that if you buy the notion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya -- as "proved" by the non-existence of his birth certificate (which actually exists) -- then you have to think face masks don't work against a coronavirus. But once you believe that "they" are lying to us about Obama, you don't have to believe "them" about anything. So who can you believe? Your fellow non-believers.
I don't think anybody saw that coming when Trump produced his show about the allegedly non-existent birth certificate. But his performance is what drew his Twitter mob. It was the "reviews" in the "lyin' media" that told the mob about his production. As I recall, the birth certificate finally was made public in Hawaii, and Trump announced there was something fishy about it. He said he was sending a team of his people to the islands to get to the bottom of it.
And that was the last thing the media reported about the "birth controversy."
The media forgot about it. But the folks attracted to the idea that the first Black president was illegitimate remembered and wondered why Trump's alleged further investigation was being ignored. And from then on the stable genius was the only reliable source.
It began as a freaak show in a third class carnival, and now it is a featured attraction under the Big Top. Who woulda thunk it?
I'm among those who dismissed the birther claim as too ridiculous to merit consideration or discussion. Although, at that time, I did see the statistics about how many Americans, especially Republicans, bought into the fable. Wasn't it something like fully half of Republicans? Maybe even more? That was, in retrospect, a huge clue about what was happening "under the hood" in conservatism - that it wasn't just that the oil needed to be changed, but that the engine was blown.
ReplyDeleteJim, would you distinguish between conservatism and the unsavory political games of elements in the GOP?
DeleteI have always leaned toward conservatism, especially in the fiscal arena, when it did not seem motivated by mean-spiritedness or ethnic/gender prejudice, or designed to magnify wealth disparity.
Conservatism that enhances everyone's wealth so that we can all be more generous is a hallmark of your better class of country club Republicans.
Birtherism had nothing to do with conservatism. Neither do freakouts over knee-bending during the national anthem, protests over police brutality, demonization of immigrants, or waving guns around the public square.
Jim, Applebaum said she had heard 20-30 percent of Americans believed in birtherism at one time. That sounds high to me, but perhaps that was what was happening while most of us were laughing at the latest gem from the guy who added 10 floors to the height of Trump Tower in a press release knowing full well that any New Yorker can count rows of windows.
Delete"Jim, would you distinguish between conservatism and the unsavory political games of elements in the GOP?"
DeleteJean, right. If we can hearken back to 2012 (not really that long ago), we thought conservatism was the Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan brand - some amalgam of entrepreneurial creativity, individual agency/responsibility, Libertarian tolerance, vigorous national defense and moral traditionalism. And, of course, fiscal responsibility, cf. the Tea Party.
Some cycles, that was enough to win; some cycles (especially cycles in which the opponent was Barack Obama) it wasn't.
What I didn't realize at that time - maybe I'm the only one who didn't - was that lurking in that amalgam was a massive army of Know Nothings. That's Donald Trump's original contribution to American politics: the revival of the Know Nothings.
In retrospect, I guess the Know Nothings always were there amid people who tended to vote Republican - the Evangelical (and some Catholic) Christians, the small-town and exurban white blue collar workers, the small business owners. Maybe they should be called Speak Nothings rather than Know Nothings: they always were there, harboring their resentments and prejudices, but were socially aware enough to know that to display those prejudices openly was socially toxic. So they simply stopped speaking about them - but continued harboring them.
I consider myself a philosophical conservative. What I've learned is that there aren't many of us. We'd be a tiny third party if (when?) we break away from the thoroughly Trumpified GOP. Bret Stephens wrote a few days ago that among the most likely national chairmen of the GOP post-election is Donald Trump Jr. That's like putting Fredo in charge of the family business. Lord help us.
Tom, that 20%-30% of Americans to which Applebauum referred, is what you get when you average the 5% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans who believed that sh*t.
DeleteJim, could you please tell us what philosophical conservatives believe?
Delete"could you please tell us what philosophical conservatives believe?"
DeleteAnne, I don't have a full-blown definition. Not all conservatives are alike (not even thoughtful ones!). In my view, they encompass some of the things I mentioned in the previous comment, such as a respect for human liberty and agency. I would also put biases toward a free market and limited republican government near the top of the list. And support for traditional family arrangements.
For me, some of it verges on the theological: humans are fallen, which means imperfect and prone to sin, and so we need social arrangements which check and control our worst instincts and excesses.
Philosophical conservatives also have lists of "againsts", such as totalitarianism of all stripes, centralized government planning/control/ownership of the economy, and any and all Utopian schemes.
Having just wrote these paragraphs, I re-read them to see how well Trump meets my criteria. I don't consider him a strong proponent of anything I'm for, nor a strong opponent of anything I'm against. For a few of my criteria (such as support for a free market), he's opposed to what I support and vice-versa. I don't think he's very conservative. The idea that his ascendancy in the GOP amounts to a hostile takeover sounds right to me. The GOP is dependent on voters (Trump voters) who don't especially share traditional conservative principles. This is a fundamental issue for the GOP.
Don't know how this will all shake out, but what I see signs of happening is a realignment, such that the Democratic Party becomes the party of the college-educated while the GOP becomes the party of non-college-educated whites. If not for the gigantic Know Nothing element in the GOP, the GOP could become a multicultural party of the non-college-educated of any/all races and ethnic backgrounds.
Thanks, Jim. I am a free market person, but with limits and oversight. I think capitalism in the US has been tainted by excess greed and the libertarian me-me-me philosophy. Regulation is needed, but Trump and the GOP have been throwing out regulations that benefit the people right and left, at the behest of the bottom-line profit focused corporations. Consumer protection regulations have been devastated, along with environmental protection regs.
DeleteTrump opposes free trade, and the GOP also gave up on fiscal responsibility, approving a huge tax cut during a time that it was absolutely not needed. The resulting debt of a trillion would be useful now. Tax cuts are ordinarily used for fiscal stimulus during recessions, not during expansions. But the 1% wanted them.
Step by step, Trump is moving towards totalitarianism, aided by Barr and others (such as Pompeo) in his administration - most of whom are allegedly devout Catholics and christians. But they are aiding and abetting the most evil president in US history.
Trump and the GOP are also anti-life, even though nominally anti-abortion - pro-life is not the same as anti-abortion(the MSW article Katherine links to goes into that).
So even if I liked Trump's trade and tax policies,even if I fell for the lie that he is pro-life, I could never support him or the current GOP. He ran on a platform of inciting fear and hatred of "the other" - making them scapegoats just as Hitler made Jews the scapegoats. He is doubling down on that now. Even if I liked the policies (which I don't), he upended the rocks and let the slime crawl out. That's why David Duke and his cohorts celebrated his election - their time had come, Duke said. Trump's encouragement of intrinsic evil is frightening. His corruption is without limits. Tom's fears of barbed wire encampments in the future are not as far-fetched as some might think. Read Snyder's book, "On Tyranny". And Albright's book called "Fascism: A Warning".
Trump no longer even tries to hide the racism. The dog-whistles are now just whistles, very loud whistles.
Most of the legitimate "conservatives" left the GOP and are part of the #NeverTrump movement.
The pro-traditional family issue interests me as part of "philosophical conservatism". Could you explain - without leaning on christian morality related to sex outside of marriage - why only the married male-female and two kids traditional family is "the" right constellation? Some years ago, working on a research project, I learned that a higher percentage of children 18 and younger in Sweden live with both biological parents than do children in the US. Most children in the US who no longer lived with both birth parents were born to married parents. That was not the case in Sweden, where marriage had become somewhat outdated. Yet the couples stayed together, and raised their children together far more often than was the case in the US. The married parents at birth got divorced, and the kids grew up in multiple homes.
I met a very nice family at my grandson's school last Christmas. Dad, and Dad, and 5 year old son. Dad#1 stays at home as full-time parent. He is also a room parent, and was great with the kids. Dad #2 is a musician, and wrote the scores for some well-known Disney movies. They always go to the Friday chapel service that the kids have at school. (obviously not a Catholic school- Lutheran). I know from my son and his wife that both dads are devoted to their son and to one another. They are married. They are exceptionally kind people as well apparently, something that was obvious even in our brief conversations after the school Christmas program and after the Christmas Eve church service. A better family environment than many traditional families i know.
Hi Anne, naturally there is much I could comment on in reply. I think you and I are pretty much aligned regarding a regulated free market; we might possibly quibble (or not) regarding how much regulation is the right amount. I agree with you that there is an excessively libertarian streak abroad. I just can't square libertarianism with Catholic social teaching.
DeleteRegarding my support for traditional family arrangements: unfortunately, maybe tragically, that stance often is used as a cover for someone who is more anti-non-traditional (an example of a non-traditional arrangement being the two-dad family you described) than pro-traditional. That's not me. What I support is responsible parenthood from both parents. Slacker dads are by far the biggest problem. The correlation between single-parent households and bad outcomes for children is strong. "Statistically, a child in a single-parent household is far more likely to experience violence, commit suicide, continue a cycle of poverty, become drug dependent, commit a crime or perform below his peers in education."
https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Building%20a%20Career%20Pipeline%20Documents/safe_harbor.pdf
Parenting is a heavy lift even with two parents. I don't know what I would have done if I had been single at the time we had our children. I hadn't finished college yet, and my job experience consisted of clerking in a grocery store.
DeleteSlacker dads exist in heterosexual marriage, of course. That's not an argument for non-traditional family arrangements. But traditional views of men and women, and stereotypes about their roles, have let a lot of men off the hook for a lot of centuries.
DeleteThanks for the Anne Applebaum links, Tom. I think you are right that "Once you believe that "they" are lying to us about Obama, you don't have to believe "them" about anything". Down the rabbit hole we go when everything is a lie.
ReplyDeleteThe best part of the Applebaum interview was the last paragraph,
"So everybody who founded and created democratic systems has always been aware of how fragile they can be. They require something almost, you know, that goes against human nature. Namely, they require all of us to allow our political enemies to rule, you know? We are going to let them rule for a while. And then we're going to try and beat them back and take power from them through using these legal methods. And, you know, if you think about it, that's a tough ask. That doesn't mean it has to fail, but it means that it can. " That bit about letting our political enemies rule is the clicker. Sometimes people decide that's a risk that can't be taken.
Something Applebaum didn't mention, but which (in my opinion) goes along with believing that "they" are lying about everything, is a willingness to demonize one's political opponents. I am thinking especially about some in the pro-life movement. If you characterized anyone who is pro-choice as a baby-killer, then it's a short walk to considering them capable of any evil. I'm sure there are examples on the other end of the spectrum too. One that comes to mind is considering anyone who expresses any reservations at all about some LBGTQ issues is guilty of hate speech.
ReplyDeleteAnd also as far as the "other end of the spectrum", the ones who consider abortion rights as a sine qua non.
DeleteFor a good commentary along these lines see this article by Michael Sean Winters on NCR today.
DeleteKatherine, Good point about demonizing the "other." Congress critters used to stay in or around Washington, and their kids and spouses would mix. It's hard to hate the mother of your son's best friend, even if she is the other party. Now they all go home and never get to know each other. When Morning Joe was a Republican member, he'd cross the aisle to talk to Democrats. He said when he got back his party mates would quiz him on what it's like "over there" as if he was getting back from deepest Patagonia.
DeleteTerm limiting makes bipartisanship even harder.
DeleteMy brother and his wife (the Arizona relatives who got COVID - five weeks, but recovering now) are true Trump people, even now.
ReplyDeleteThey were also on board the birtherism conspiracy.
Funny how nobody was worried about Cruz or McCain, who were born out of the country. Cruz only had one American citizen parent too! Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he was an American citizen from birth, as were Cruz and McCain.
Anne Applebaum now writes regularly for The Atlantic. I no longer see a column by her as a regular for WaPo. Her Atlantic articles are more in-depth, longer than the Opinion pieces in the Post. I've saved several of her recent Atlantic articles.
Anne, glad to hear that your brother and sister-in-law are recovering. I'm sure it hasn't been an easy process. Did they have to be hospitalized?
DeleteKatherine, they didn't have to stay in a hospital. They were very sick, with a progression of miserable symptoms. Very weak so they didn't even answer texts or email for hours or days, and usually only with a line saying they would answer later. My s-i-l had scary symptoms that sent them to the ER. She had COVID pneumonia, but they decided after several hours of observation that her oxygen level was high enough. They went home with an oximeter. They were very dehydrated and their son arranged for a nurse to go to their house and give them IV fluids on two occasions. But, it's over. They test negative, and are now trying to regain strength. She says they still have covid brain fog and zero energy, but their doc says it's part of the recovery process.
ReplyDeleteGlad it is on the downhill now. It is so unpredictable. A man from our town, who is a senator in the state legislature, recently spent 5 weeks in the hospital in Omaha. Two weeks of it was intensive care. He said the same thing about brain fog and fatigue afterward. On the other hand, a 96 year old nun who was my son's first grade teacher tested positive but never had any symptoms. They tested her because there was an outbreak at the assisted living where she resides. One wonders if she might have encountered a similar virus at some point in her long life.
DeleteThe only legitimate Republicans left are the "never Trumpers" like the members of the Lincoln Project. The rest? Paranoid soul-sellers. It will take a long time post-Drumpf for the GOP to resurrect, if it ever does. That is not good because a one party dominance is not good for that party nor the country.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree, Jim
ReplyDeleteI consider the present GOP to be incompatible with American democracy and it should disappear. The present Democratic Party is mostly neoliberal and to the right of Eisenhower. It is supportive of corporate primacy. It can function as a Republican Party and New Deal principles can be represented by a new party with democratic socialist principles. Sanders and the Squad could form the nucleus of this new party. What happens with anti-abortion? I guess it will be in trouble but that's what happens when you make common cause with demagogues and fascists.
ReplyDeleteI could live with a Republican Party of Michael Gersons, Bret Stephenses, George Conways, Mona (Vote them all out) Charon and David (Let's not go overboard, Mona) Frenches. I might even be able to live IN it, given the comatose state of the alternative. But I am afraid it ain't gonna happen that way. The Tea Party, as Young Douthat suggests, is only playing possum, and the nothing-for-nobody wing will take over.
Delete