Tuesday Tab Clearing

“It feels like the academic equivalent of nuclear war,” said Dr. Michael Barnett, an associate professor of health policy at the school of public health. “Nukes have been launched and there’s just increasingly complete devastation”

The loss of funding is a blow to researchers who’ve spent decades working to improve human health, to lab staff who hoped findings would launch their careers, and to patients around the world who rely on this work.

But, you know, who cares about cancer research when you can stick it to Harvard? Amiright?

FILED UNDER: Tab Clearing, , , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.

Comments

  1. CSK says:

    Oh, come now. All MAGAs know that Harvard’s a shitty school that teaches nothing but deranged radical leftist ideology.

    2
  2. DK says:

    …a major reason for the Clinton era budget surplus, and by extension, the best way to lower deficits, is via tax increases

    aka. Fiscal Responsibility, or the exact opposite of what Trump and congressional Republicans are plotting rn.

    9
  3. gVOR10 says:

    Re “The Wolves Came” above, Digby links to a 2023 piece by one David Roberts that says very well something I’ve tried to get to here a few times.

    In his book The School for Dictators, Ignazio Silone famously called fascism “a counter-revolution against a revolution that never took place.” There is much wisdom there.
    A core feature of reactionary (I’ll use that term rather than “fascist” because people love to pointlessly debate semantics) movements is an *inversion of power*. They cast the weak as looming threats & status-quo powers as the trembling victims.
    This is a familiar move, in macro & micro terms, in every reactionary movement. You see it in the US when they talk about gay or trans people imposing themselves on everyone, “forcing their lifestyle down our throats.” Or when they talk about how white people face more racism.
    Or, on a grander scale, when they talk about how social justice warriors have taken over *every institution in the the US*, ruthlessly imposing their woke worldview.

    It’s self-evidently ridiculous, but why do they do it so consistently?
    The point is to justify their own escalating violence & lawlessness. They hate difference, they hate the status quo being challenged, they hate the *existence* of Others in their midst, so they need to convince one another that it’s ok to cast off norms & let the violence out.
    This is why the only mode of moral argumentation you ever see from a reactionary is whataboutism.

    Everyone defaults to describing politics as tit-for-tat. The current example is Dems pushed gays and trans down everyone’s throat so GOPs are of course campaigning against trans. But Dems never pushed gays and trans. Obama famously ducked gay marriage for years. There are so few trans the public would be barely aware of trans as an issue if GOPs hadn’t blown it all out of proportion. There was no tit before the tat. “a counter-revolution against a revolution that never took place.” indeed.

    Roberts continues,

    It’s not even really a moral argument. It’s just a permission structure — they did it, so we can’t be held accountable for doing it too.

    I’ve been re-reading Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die. It’s full of valuable insights into modern autocracy. But I’ve come to worry about books like this. I have no doubt there are PhDs at AEI and their ilk reading them as instruction manuals. The path to autocracy is well trod and well documented for anyone setting out to follow it.

    6
  4. Kylopod says:

    @gVOR10: I’d like to push back a little against the attempt to use reactionary as an alternative to fascist to avoid the semantic arguments over the latter. All fascists are reactionaries, but not all reactionaries are fascists. And what he describes is broadly true about reactionaries, not just the fascist ones. Much of the rhetoric in defense of Jim Crow (and no–Jim Crow was definitely anti-democratic, but not fascist, at least not intrinsically) was to cast the white oppressors as in fact the oppressed. You’ve heard me quote the following from Sen. Richard Russell in his speech opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

    “In all of the sanctimony about protecting the rights of minorities, let us understand fully that the bill is aimed at what has become the most despised and mistreated minority in the country — namely, the white people of the Southern States.”

    The segregationists also accused the civil rights movement of wishing to give black people “special rights,” a phrase that would later be appropriated by opponents of LGBT rights. Bob Dole used the phrase in 1996 after returning a donation from the Log Cabin Republicans. Rick Perry used it in 2011 in protest against a memorandum from the Obama Admin combating the persecution of gay people in other countries, particularly Uganda, which aimed to (and eventually did) make homosexuality a capital offense.

    This type of language inversion is not limited to fascists. It’s the essential tool of all bigots trying to rationalize what they’re doing by casting themselves as the victims rather than the perpetrators.

    2
  5. Kylopod says:

    Why is the comment I posted not appearing?

  6. Matt Bernius says:

    @Kylopod:
    Caching issues.

    1
  7. gVOR10 says:

    @Matt Bernius: Hoping you’ll see this comment soon, we do appreciate your efforts on behalf of the site. I expect it’s turned into a lot more than you thought you signed up for.

    1