Linkage

In 1954, William F. Buckley and his best friend and brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell published McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning. Both men were in their late twenties. Their full-throated defense of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist crusade received a lot of attention and furthered their status as rising stars on the Right. One year later, Buckley founded National Review. I re-read McCarthy and His Enemies this fall in preparation for a graduate course on “Conservatism and the Far Right” I taught at Georgetown this past semester. And what stood out to me was the book’s final chapter, titled “The New Conformity” in which the authors left no doubt that all societies must indeed impose some conformity, defined as “its prevailing value preferences” – “or else they cease to exist. The members of a society must share certain values if that society is to cohere; and cohere it must if it is to survive.”

[…] 

In this quest, Buckley and Bozell were certain to have the support of the “vast majority of the American people” who agreed there was no place for communism in America – McCarthyism was therefore only aiming “to harden the existing conformity.” What about the danger of censoring and sanctioning anyone and anything associated with “the Left”? Certainly, Buckley and Bozell agreed, “Whenever the anti-Communist conformity excludes well-meaning Liberals, we should … go to their rescue.” But they dismissed the idea that the anti-communist crusade might have produced such dangerous excesses – in fact, they claimed, McCarthy “fixes its goals with precision.”

That, however, is a very disingenuous depiction of Red Scare America and the pervasive anti-communist hysteria of the post-war period. And beyond the machinations of senator Joe McCarthy: It’s difficult to accept such reassurances that conservatives were targeting *just* communism when we remember that Modern Conservatism’s leading thinkers like Whittaker Chambers explicitly claimed that there was little difference between communism and liberalism, that both represented merely different guises of the same fundamental threat.

[…]

The overriding goal of Modern Conservatism has been to uphold what its leading intellectuals in the 1950s explicitly defined as the “natural” or divinely ordained order. If “traditional” conservatism – of the preserving kind, or the Burkean/Oakshottean variety, if you will – was no longer commensurate with that challenge, more radical measures would have to be taken.

The leaders of today’s Trumpist Right aren’t conservatives. But they continue, in a profound sense, the tradition of Modern Conservatism.

Q. It wasn’t just Trumpism. Some Democratic voices say it’s time to move beyond the issue of trans rights in areas like sports, which affect very few people.

A. You could say that about the Jews, Black people or Haitians, or any very vulnerable minority. Once you decide that a single vulnerable minority can be sacrificed, you’re operating within a fascist logic, because that means there might be a second one you’re willing to sacrifice, and a third, a fourth, and then what happens?

[…]

We have a pernicious history of misogyny, which is being celebrated in the person of Trump. Guilty of sexual crimes, he has done more than any other American person to demean and degrade women as a class. The people who say, “Oh, I don’t like that part of his behavior, but I’m going to vote for him anyway because of the economy,” they’re admitting that they are willing to live with that misogyny and look away from his sexual violence. The more people who say that they can “live with” racism and misogyny in a candidate, even if they’re not enthusiastic racists, the more the enthusiastic racists and the fascists become stronger. I see a kind of restoration fantasy at play in many right-wing movements in the U.S. People want to go back to the idea of being a white country or the idea of the patriarchal family, the principle that marriages are for heterosexuals. I call it a nostalgic fury for an impossible past. Those in the grip of that fury are effectively saying: “I don’t like the complexity of this world, and all these people speaking all these languages. I’m fearful that my family will become destroyed by gender ideology.” As a consequence of that, they’re furiously turning against some of the most vulnerable people in this country, stripping of them of rights as they fear that the same will be done to them.

One of the principles upon which provision of puberty blockers to young trans people was made was Gillick competence – the law that says that young people over the age of 12 can be individually assessed by medical professionals to determine whether or not they’re competent to make medical decisions for themselves. This was hard fought for by feminist campaigners back in the 1980s and it led to the passing of the Age Of Legal Capacity Act in Scotland in 1991. It’s a principle of particular importance when it comes to reproductive healthcare, as it helps young people to access the services they need even if, for instance, they feel unsafe discussing them with their parents. As such, it helps to protect them from abuse and to get used to the idea that they have ownership of their bodies, which is important as they grow up and negotiate boundaries in romantic and social relationships.

By overriding Gillick competence where trans people are concerned, Streeting has created a risk that it will be ignored in other cases too. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. He seems shaky on the concept of medical consent more generally, as demonstrated by his suggestion that obese unemployed people should be given the weight loss drug Ozempic to improve their health and get them back into work. Although his initial comments on this, which provoked a public outcry, were quickly followed by assurances that it would not be compulsory, concern remains about the vulnerability of people who depend on the state for support, especially those who are disabled, who make up a significant part of the obese population. Like most drugs, Ozempic has side effects and is not appropriate for everyone.

In Austin, attorney Meghan Alexander used to receive maybe three calls a week about second-parent adoptions. The week after the election, she received 26. The calls and emails haven’t stopped.

“The advice is the same as it’s been for the last couple of decades, which is to do a second-parent adoption. Do not depend on the federal government or the gay right to marry to give you parental rights,” Alexander said.

Alexander recommends to her clients that parents get an adoption instead of a parentage order because in Texas, for example, parentage orders for LGBTQ+ families have not been thoroughly challenged in the court system, Alexander said, while adoptions have been upheld by the courts many times.

Adoptions are a popular option because they are also more commonly understood and “universally recognized” across states and countries, said Nancy Polikoff, professor emerita at American University Washington College of Law and an expert in LGBTQ+ family law. Still, it ultimately will depend on state laws and the parents’ preferences as to which avenue they pursue.

[…]

“When we are looking at the possibility of cutting back on LGBT family recognition, states that are not inclined to recognize the legitimacy of parenting by LGBT people are going to be emboldened to deny that status whenever they can,” she said.

Polikoff said she does not believe that gay marriage will be overturned in the next four years, but what may be more likely to happen is that states and courts will try to cut back on some protections LGBTQ+ people have recently secured. Parenting relationships could become easy prey. 

For transgender Americans looking for help or protection from the Biden administration in its dying days, Raquel Willis has a stark assessment.

"Unfortunately, the signals coming from our government right now, under a Democratic president, are telling us that we’re essentially on our own," the 33-year-old activist tells The Independent.

[…]

What does Willis think of the standard Democrat line that the GOP’s war on trans is only a "distraction" from the "real issues"? Willis pauses and considers her words carefully before answering.

"In this moment, it is not enough to simply call anti-trans attacks from Republicans a distraction," she says. "Perhaps if this was 2015, 2016… there might be an argument.

"But lives have already been targeted and changed by these efforts. So we are beyond that point, and we can’t confront discrimination with inaction."

The Harris campaign, she adds, set a "horrible example" by declining to respond to the GOP’s late-election blitz of anti-trans TV ads, on which the party is estimated to have spent at least $215m.

"That was a loss before the election even happened," says Willis.

"If the Democratic Party wants to claim to be representative of progress and of the Left, it cannot leave communities on the chopping block, because it will continue to lose if it does so."

Drawing on more than a year of information gathering, this position paper presents a snapshot of the repression and criminalization of peaceful environmental protest and civil disobedience observed by the Special Rapporteur in European countries that are Parties to the Aarhus Convention. It explains why the Special Rapporteur considers this repression and criminalization to constitute a major threat to democracy, human rights, the civic space, and to the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Aarhus Convention, and therefore why he has made this issue a priority topic under his mandate. It sets out why the Special Rapporteur considers a profound change in how States respond to environmental protest to be urgently required and features five calls for action to States on how to do so. It also urges the human rights community to coordinate their efforts to support this call for action.

The criminalisation and repression of climate and environmental protest is problematic for at least two main reasons. First, it focuses state policy on punishing dissent against inaction on climate and environmental change instead of taking adequate action on these issues. In criminalising and repressing climate and environmental activists, states depoliticise them. Second, they represent authoritarian moves that are not consistent with the ideals of vibrant civil societies in liberal democracies.

[…]

Governments, legislatures, courts and police forces should operate with a general presumption against criminalising climate and environmental protests. Instead, climate and environmental protest should be regarded as a reasonable response to the urgent and existential nature of the climate crisis, and activists engaged as stakeholders in a process of just transition.

A new study was released in recent days that should have been newsworthy, but it escaped the media's attention in Australia.

It showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environmental protesters.

According to the study, more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involve arrests, which is more than three times the global average (6.3 per cent).

Australia's arrest rate was the highest of 14 countries in the global study.

It's higher than policing efforts in the United Kingdom (17.2 per cent), Norway (14.5 per cent), and the United States (10 per cent).

The research makes it clear that Australia's political leaders have joined the "rapid escalation" of efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest, while sovereign states globally fail to meet their international agreements and emissions targets.

[…]

When you read the Bristol University study alongside the special rapporteur's position paper and the EDO paper, you get a pretty good sense of how the clampdown on climate and environmental activism actually works, and why it's occurring.

Collectively, the reports discuss an issue that links political donations and pressure from fossil fuel companies, governments writing new laws and harsher penalties for climate and environmental activists, federal and state policing agencies being put to work to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts being used to bed them down.

And hanging over the entire political problem is the question of the "pricing mechanism" and the role it plays in a society like ours.

When you look at this issue dispassionately, you'll see that we're witnessing a nasty global battle over the attempt to have the negative externalities of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products of fossil fuel companies.

Trump sees the accreditation process as his “secret weapon” in his war on universities. In the USA, states have varying control of education, and universities have enjoyed a lot of autonomy. The practice of accreditation involves a “non-governmental, peer evaluation of educational institutions and programmes”.

However, eligibility for federal aid, grants, student loans and other funds that universities depend on is contingent on accreditation. And while the government does not control the process of accreditation itself, the Department of Education has the power to “recognise” accreditors, or withdraw this recognition.

With the new Republican Congress behind him, Trump wants to empower new accreditors with ideological standards such as “defending the American tradition and western civilisation, protecting free speech, eliminating wasteful administrative positions that drive up costs incredibly, [and] removing all Marxist diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats”.

Incoming Vice President JD Vance once proclaimed that “professors are the enemy”. This year, Vance introduced The Encampments or Endowments Bill in the US Senate which, if passed, would punish “campus disorder” by making federal funding contingent on universities removing campus protest encampments. Efforts to introduce what Pen America has called “educational gag orders” – laws, policies and bills that restrict teaching and training on certain topics such as racism, gender and American history – in colleges and universities are also “likely to disproportionately affect the free speech rights of students, educators, and trainers who are women, people of color, and LGBTQ+.” 

The MAGA-Tech alliance is rooted in a shared hierarchical worldview. This worldview concentrates power in the hands of wealthy and predominantly white men. Their job is to impose a strict social order based on their continuing supremacy.

Trump Republicans and tech authoritarians may frame their beliefs differently, but their actions reveal an alignment: maintaining hierarchy, resisting egalitarianism, and elevating profit, power, and their own desires above all else.

What the tech authoritarians describe as “gray” politics is a 21st century version of Strict Father Morality. It is a moral system that replaces God with technology and money – and with the moral supremacy of those who control both.