- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 33,841
- Reaction score
- 34,035
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
More than a decade ago, I read a post on the word "Revanchism" and its application to various events in the world, as well as its linguistic/political expansion as a concept. This Is Not A Revanchist Post (I have nothing to reclaim). I have used that term specifically to describe Trump and the MAGA brand of revisionism in the Republican party, and for specific reasons, as I will explain. As currently stated in Merriam Webster, "Revanchist" is described as ": of or relating to a policy designed to recover lost territory or status : of or relating to a revanche" - meaning "revenge". (I think one can perceive its application.)
Originally, revanchism was a very specific term related to/synonymous with irredentism - specifically reclamation of territory by a losing combatant. It is nationalistic in tenor. But, as used in political science, it has metamorphosed into a more general meaning of "taking back" what one perceives to have lost. In the battle of ideas, it has valence in conservative circles on this basis: "a politician is revanchist when he (or she) takes a position that seems to have no clearer motive than simply exacting revenge for previous political losses, or for changes in the culture at large which have caused it to deviate from that politician’s perceived “correct” vision." "The Lost Cause" is a classic example of a revanchist impulse - the South, and its sympathizers, lost the war, but seeks to reclaim the narrative of its meaning. Thus the Civil War was not about maintaining "slavery" (despite all of the historical records establishing that) but had nobler aspirations. Nikki Haley recently hoist herself by her own petard trying to articulate that stance.
And that brings me to "Revisionism". The greatest tool of the revanchist is nostalgic/historical revisionism - "the theory or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view." But, again, the connotation of the term is a bit different than its literal application, as literally all History is revisionist - as an intellectual pursuit, serious historians always revise their views as new information is discovered (See, for example, new views of the Black Death, and Göbekli Tepe). Instead, political scientists tend to use the term to describe it as "revising history to accommodate one's political beliefs." Ironically, that conflict in meanings has become a political football over the last decade or so in opposition to The 1619 Project, Critical Race Theory, and transgenderism. The 1619 project is, of course, revisionist, as it is taking a look at American history specifically through the underrepresented lens of the slave experience and influence. But it is historically revisionist, whereas the attacks on that history are politically revisionist - giving it a meaning directly opposed to its actual purpose - which is correcting historical incompleteness.
Which then brings me, specifically, to the current iteration of "Republicanism". Ironically, Republicanism has itself been transformed from its original conception, as "a system that replaces or accompanies inherited rule. There is an emphasis on liberty, and a rejection of corruption", to its opposite. The Republican party, itself, was a resurrection of its original conception, what John Adams described as "the "science of politics is the science of social happiness" and a republic is the form of government arrived at when the science of politics is appropriately applied to the creation of a rationally designed government."
Joe Biden is wont to distinguish "MAGA Republicans" from traditional Republicans on the basis that MAGA is in essence a Revanchist movement within the existing party apparatus. He doesn't use the term, but he sure is describing the tendencies!
Originally, revanchism was a very specific term related to/synonymous with irredentism - specifically reclamation of territory by a losing combatant. It is nationalistic in tenor. But, as used in political science, it has metamorphosed into a more general meaning of "taking back" what one perceives to have lost. In the battle of ideas, it has valence in conservative circles on this basis: "a politician is revanchist when he (or she) takes a position that seems to have no clearer motive than simply exacting revenge for previous political losses, or for changes in the culture at large which have caused it to deviate from that politician’s perceived “correct” vision." "The Lost Cause" is a classic example of a revanchist impulse - the South, and its sympathizers, lost the war, but seeks to reclaim the narrative of its meaning. Thus the Civil War was not about maintaining "slavery" (despite all of the historical records establishing that) but had nobler aspirations. Nikki Haley recently hoist herself by her own petard trying to articulate that stance.
And that brings me to "Revisionism". The greatest tool of the revanchist is nostalgic/historical revisionism - "the theory or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view." But, again, the connotation of the term is a bit different than its literal application, as literally all History is revisionist - as an intellectual pursuit, serious historians always revise their views as new information is discovered (See, for example, new views of the Black Death, and Göbekli Tepe). Instead, political scientists tend to use the term to describe it as "revising history to accommodate one's political beliefs." Ironically, that conflict in meanings has become a political football over the last decade or so in opposition to The 1619 Project, Critical Race Theory, and transgenderism. The 1619 project is, of course, revisionist, as it is taking a look at American history specifically through the underrepresented lens of the slave experience and influence. But it is historically revisionist, whereas the attacks on that history are politically revisionist - giving it a meaning directly opposed to its actual purpose - which is correcting historical incompleteness.
Which then brings me, specifically, to the current iteration of "Republicanism". Ironically, Republicanism has itself been transformed from its original conception, as "a system that replaces or accompanies inherited rule. There is an emphasis on liberty, and a rejection of corruption", to its opposite. The Republican party, itself, was a resurrection of its original conception, what John Adams described as "the "science of politics is the science of social happiness" and a republic is the form of government arrived at when the science of politics is appropriately applied to the creation of a rationally designed government."
Joe Biden is wont to distinguish "MAGA Republicans" from traditional Republicans on the basis that MAGA is in essence a Revanchist movement within the existing party apparatus. He doesn't use the term, but he sure is describing the tendencies!