The Enemy of My Enemy
On big tent coalitions, anti-fascism and the disturbing trend of sliding farther to the right
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Maya Angelou
One of the first, if not the first, Hollywood movies that I have seen was one of the more cliche 80s pulpy sci-fi flicks Enemy Mine, starring Dennis Quaid. I am fairly sure that the scene, where the two main characters sit by campfire and Quaid’s character asks Louis Gossett Jr. what would he have done without him, only to get the curt, pithy and incredibly ironic “Be home!,” was my introduction to the type of humor prevalent in most Hollywood action movies and the beginning of my love affair with movie quotes and oneliners. Looking back, I understand how cringy that line was when translated into Russian, especially in the context the developing friendship between a human and a bipedal reptilian humanoid1. I am reminded of the movie because Dennis Quaid staring Reagan has been recently released. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but while I do plan on watching it eventually, the movie does not seem to be groundbreaking, earth-shattering or even historically accurate: The Washington Post's Ty Burr gave the film 1.5 out of 4 stars, writing, "The faithful for whom Reagan was made aren't likely to see that it's a hagiography as rosy and shallow as anything in a Kremlin May Day parade. As pop-culture propaganda — popaganda, if you will — the movie's strictly for true believers. As history, it's worthless.”
Closer to the end of the movie Reagan delivers a speech near the Brandenburg Gate, and demands for Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. The triumph of popoganda doublethink is not that "we like being lied to, we like the promises that will never be kept" is a quote from an OpEd article on Javier Milei, Donald J. Trump or Narendra Modi, but rather a quote from J.G. Ballard, in 2006, on Tony Blair.
Ballard was, among many things, an underappreciated visionary who could see through the fabric of the Western cultural revolution in the 60s and clearly foresee the emerging patterns coming to fruition when in 1968 he wrote “Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan” because he was impressed and inspired by the phenomenon of media politicians who speak for private interests, whilst pretending to speak for the public interest, because:
In his commercials Reagan used the smooth, teleprompter-perfect tones of the TV auto-salesman to project a political message that was absolutely the reverse of bland and reassuring. A complete discontinuity existed between Reagan’s manner and body language, on the one hand, and his scarily simplistic right-wing message on the other [hand]. Above all, it struck me that Reagan was the first politician to exploit the fact that his TV audience would not be listening too closely, if at all, to what he was saying, and indeed might well assume, from his manner and presentation, that he was saying the exact opposite of the words actually emerging from his mouth.
If you immediately thought of Trump, Putin, Netanyahu and their ilk, think again. This is just as as true and just as applicable to Clinton (both of them), Obama, Starmer… and yes, even the recent debate performance by Vice President Kamala Harris. This story, though, is not about Reagan, but a part of his legacy that continues to live on, getting ingrained into our political and social discourse deeper and deeper.
I have always wondered whether Reagan or those close to him really knew or understood what the future without the Wall would be, what the real rather than popoganda legacy of Reagan would be.
It’s well known that the “trickle-down economics” were an outrageous lie sold to the American public. As Frank Reich notes, “in 1989, the super-rich held $472 billion in unrealized capital gains. In 2022, that figure was $8.5 trillion.” But did they envision their party siding with Russian fascism or the normalization and legitimization of “America First” nazis within their own ranks? In retrospect, perhaps it all adds up. Reagan's welfare queen speech was pretty much "I saw something online" but in 1976. I'm fine accepting the premise that Reagan's racism wasn't dialed all of the way to 11 like Trump's is, but let's not pretend it wasn't dialed to 9.
Last week, former Vice President Dick Cheney issued a statement that he will be voting for Kamala Harris. Her campaign was only too happy to accept and flaunt his endorsement. Even Bernie Sanders (!!!) on Meet the Press said: "Cheney and I agree on nothing. No issues. But what we do believe in is that the United States should retain its democratic foundations ... I applaud the Cheneys for their courage in defending democracy."
On one hand even if Dick freaking Cheney recognizes that Trump is an existential threat to the nation and democracy, we know for a fact that the desperate need to stop fascism is not a left-right issue, but an issue of humanity, morality, decency… But on the other hand, Dick Cheney should be on trial at The Hague not defending these principles. Yes, Dick Cheney has shot more rich Republicans in the face than any of us. HIS friend. And the guy apologized, to him! But let’s not forget that spread headed the rise of executive privilege being abused, support torture, launch illegal surveillance programs including against American citizens and start multiple wars that resulted in atrocities.
He is, as far as I can tell, the FIRST person who's ever held an executive office to endorse the other party's candidate. He was arguably the most powerful VP in US history. He essentially ran the White House. “The man was terrifying, so for him to say Trump is a true threat to the republic is like Thanos warning the Avengers about Kang.”
I despise Dick Cheney. His horrific crimes can neither be forgiven nor forgotten. But people like me aren’t the target audience for his endorsement. It’s an appeal to swing voters who might turn away from Trump. Russiapublicans can’t be the only ones with a ruthless strategy. Liz Cheney, in the most direct way she can, makes the case that Trump/Vance have a real problem with women, in what Vance repeatedly says and the awful things Trump has said/done.
I’m of course using the case of Cheney to think through some broader questions about conflicting ideas of “democracy” and what it means to “defend” it. The dominant reaction is either “Cheney is good now, nothing else matters” or “Cheney is evil, nothing else matters.”
Hurricane Katrina was a radicalizing moment for me. Seeing people painting “help “on the roofs left to die; people getting food shot by the same mercenaries hired in Iraq.
This is when the the distinction between the two political sides started to get blurry. Lest we forget, Barbara Lee was one and only person in Congress, House and Senate, who voted against the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force).
Though, the lines started to blur earlier, when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who at my most generous are “centrist” politicians, promoted themselves as the saviours of the rebirth of the left, painted themselves as “progressive.”
What we are seeing right now happening in Springfield, Ohio is as predictable as it is devastating:
Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, are keeping their children home and reporting damage to their property as anti-immigrant conspiracy theories spread, fanned by statements by “this… former president” and his neo-nazi VP.
A bomb threat was sent to multiple city agencies and media offices in Springfield.
This is not a bug, but a feature. From the US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
Let’s forget about Dick and talk about Liz Cheney for a second. Georgetown historian Thomas Zimmer writes:
Republicans who hold the line against Trump deserve respect. But champions of egalitarian, pluralistic democracy they are not - and that also matters. What it all comes down to is this: Cheney’s vision is incompatible with egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy. But there is *some* line she’s not willing to cross to impose it on the country. A devastating indictment of the Right that this actually distinguishes her. Two overlapping conflicts are shaping America. There is the struggle to protect constitutional self-government against a rightwing authoritarian assault led by Trump – and in that struggle, all (small-d) democrats now find themselves on the same side as Liz Cheney. But there is also the fundamental conflict over *what kind* of democracy America should be, and it’s playing out at the exact same time. And in that struggle, the fault lines are different, as Liz Cheney has always pursued a vision of continued wealthy white elite domination. In terms of her policy positions and overall worldview, Cheney is no moderate. It’s not a coincidence that, in Congress, she voted with Trump basically all the time, and she supported Trump in both 2016 and 2020. She holds fairly reactionary positions across the board. In fact, Cheney shares many of the anti-democratic tendencies and impulses that have defined modern conservatism since its emergence. She has never opposed the ongoing Republican attempts to subvert democracy in more “traditional” ways. Cheney doesn’t seem to object to her party’s escalating voter suppression or gerrymandering efforts; nor has she ever seemed concerned about the Supreme Court acting as the institutional spearhead of the broader anti-democratic project. […] In 2019, for instance, she called Democrats “the party of anti-Semitism, the party of infanticide, the party of socialism.” She was not a bystander to the creation of the kind of militant, antidemocratic culture on the Right, she advanced and assisted it. Republican elites like Cheney wanted someone who could harness the extremist, far-right popular energies on the base to prevent egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy from ever upending traditional hierarchies. That was the promise of Trumpism. […]
It matters that Cheney is refusing to cross the line. It matters whether or not a democratic framework remains in place because, no matter how imperfect, it provides basic protections and some room for real democratization as well as racial and social progress. Such is the situation in which the country finds itself: The anti-democratic radicalization of the Republican Party is progressing so rapidly, so pervasively, that all those in the (small-d) democratic camp need to accept alliances with those who object to authoritarianism. At the same time, however, those who seek to establish a fully realized democracy in the United States need to make sure that those alliances do not lead to a wholesale rehabilitation of people who have been deeply complicit in Trumpism’s rise. Most importantly: All those who want to see America realize the promise of egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy have to push back against any attempt to legitimize positions and ideas held by Cheney and others that are incompatible with that vision.
Kamala Harris says if elected President, she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet.
The “diversity of opinion” is specifically a right-wing strategy adopted in the 1970s to move mainstream institutions to the right and half a century later it continues to work. "A Republic not a Democracy!" was a line that members of the John Birch Society were trained to use to disrupt public meetings by heckling.
For decades Democrats called these people war mongers, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes only to boast about their endorsements now.
At this rate, no matter what happens in November, they are going to rehabilitate Trump by 2032. The lesser of two evils voting and consistently tracking right to appear “moderate” only leads to this inevitably. It’s why Dem voters can excuse genocide, police killing more people during Biden’s admin than Trump’s, and why Biden continued his immigration policies. There’s literally no red line for Democrats. Which is terrifying since they’re supposed to be the opposition to Republicans. There is no way you can convince me somebody bragging about these endorsements can be pushed left towards any progressive policies.
I wonder why the section of the 2020 Democratic Party platform on opposing torture and death penalty has been completely removed from the 2024 edition.
Kate Aronoff writes: “It is incredibly stupid and dangerous for Democrats to keep claiming right-wing positions as some kind of sensible middle ground”.
Laura Loomer and Nick Fuentes are toasting to “America First” and the “hostile takeover” of the Republican party. The very same America First from the 1930s:
“Just a reminder that the anti-immigration worldview and all of its associated ugliness and oppression spans the spectrum of power. The Right builds its power base off this poison, but as austerity worsens it is the consensus of the powerful. The point is this: as Neoliberalism ensures increasing precarity, the usage of anti-immigration fearmongering and scapegoating is meant to grease the skids as long as it can in order to promote white supremacist paranoia that fractures coalition building and avoid reflection. We are watching the Western World move Right. Sometimes it is quiet and almost imperceptible, sometimes it is outrageous and loud and only hidden by its influence over consensus and discourse. It all emanates from the same places. Continuation of domination by entrenched power. The slide into Right Wing extremism will continue until the material conditions that created this problem are answered, namely intentional inequality and increasing precarity. It's the norm and the Right continues to pull the Moderates further and further. It's a dance.”
It is not a problem unique to the United States. The very same fascism is taking over Europe and the people in the center are making common cause with the far-right in fear of the left.
Tony Blair, the self-proclaimed progressive, mocks the post-Brexit migration boom. “We’ve swapped out single people coming from Europe … for families from Asia and Africa. How has this helped us?”
“We have no other choice, given the situation that we’re in” Keir Starmer says October’s Budget “is going to be painful” and "those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden." The Labour Party announcing the same substantive governance plan—austerity, austerity, austerity—a month after nationwide race riots is something. Between this and Macron’s openly authoritarian antics it really does look like British and French elites, having dodged the far-right bullet in July, have just decided to say, “well, fuck it.”
Many will be worried about the continuation or even normalisation of potential Islamophobic rhetoric during this leadership campaign: So far 2 out of 5 Tory leadership candidates, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, have been accused of Islamophobia.
Let’s not be hasty! What evidence do we have? Other than, uhm, the empirical record from about a decade, across almost all “Western” democracies, plus a mountain of academic research and analysis… But hey, maybe *next time* this strategy will work for the established parties?!?
Oh, wait, that worked well in Germany where for the first time since 1945 a fascist party was elected to power in Thuringia.
And Mussolini's granddaughter quits Meloni's party saying it's too right wing.
Trumpism, and fascism in general, is impervious to reality. It relies on repeatedly and noisily insisting that the world is a certain way, no matter what the reality may be. It's no accident that Trumpism unites various forms of denial - climate, COVID, elections, vaccines. Other populists (Orban, LePen, the AfD, Farage, etc.) exhibit similar pathologies. Reality-based arguments over Ukraine, for instance, don't stand a chance. Fascism is about creating a shared unreality to impose on everyone else. The great weakness of this though is that there really is an objective reality, no matter how much it's denied, whether by nature or by enemies who the populists can't influence. Shared delusions only last until reality bursts the bubble and leaves the populists exposed.
The Democratic tent is now big enough to include Dick Cheney and Rashida Tlaib and yet a mentally decrepit convicted felon adjudicated rapist and fascist who tried to stage a coup is still a coin flip to win the election.
Every institution from law to media needs introspection. How did we allow a fascist propaganda machine allied with hostile powers to corrupt our democracy to this extent?
The always great Michael Harriot writes:
“If I'm being honest, I have to squint real hard to imagine it myself. Remember when MLK said: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice?" I always assumed he meant that change might take a while, but justice is inevitable. I was wrong. The universe has no morals. It is random and violent and unpredictable and does not give a fuck about Black people or Palestinian children or genocide or racism or votes. Justice is not inevitable. The idea of a "moral universe" is just a figment of the human imagination. It is something people made up – like governments. And laws. And political parties.
American democracy did not originally include Black people. And bc we were INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED from America's basic morality, for us, NOTHING was inevitable. America was NEVER INTENDED to be a multiracial democracy. It was not one nation under god with liberty and justice for all." America's founders just SAID, "all men are created equal; WE did it. Not only did Black Americans IMAGINE a universe governed by morality or justice, we somehow managed to expand this country's idea of freedom and justice even though we didn't have it for ourselves. And we can imagine a world where we don't have to choose between the safety & security of Black people and the same for others once we understand:
The long arc of the moral universe does NOT bend toward justice. You gotta bend that motherfucker.
“When I speak of poetry I am not thinking of it as a genre. Poetry is an awareness of the world, a particular way of relating to reality.”
Andrei Tarkovsky
I have always wondered whether the depiction of Dracs, bipedal reptilian humanoids, in the movie was more akin to the Bugs in Starship Troopers or a more nuanced sociopolitical commentary, considering the respective skin color of both actors.