This is a limited-time-only preview of TNR’s newsletter Fighting Words.

Sign up to continue receiving it every Friday.

This is Fighting Words, a weekly newsletter about what got me steamed this week. Let’s dive in.

Item one: The scent of Musk

Lots of liberals are hoping that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter doesn’t go through. I guess. But you know what I sometimes think would be the best outcome of all? If the purchase goes through and he somehow destroys the platform and it ceases to exist.

There are days I appreciate Twitter. I see links to very interesting articles I never would have seen. Some people are riotously funny. And I get jazzed when my own work lights it up. But come on. It’s terrible for democracy. John Dewey once wrote that democracy involves “a consultation and a discussion which uncovers social needs and troubles.” At its best, Twitter actually is that. In fact, I’d say that on balance, a term I use advisedly, one could argue that it fosters consultation more than attacks and lies. But at its worst, boy is it bad. It is a destroyer of consultation and discussion, and of respectful dissent. And from the sound of things, Musk is only going to make it worse. It’s not just the possibility that he will restore Donald Trump’s account, although that would be a huge deal—it would undoubtedly help elevate Trump and improve his chances for getting back to the White House, if he runs, and Musk really ought to think about whether he wants to abet that.

But more broadly, Musk’s idea of free speech is simplistic and wrong and dangerous. Musk recently tweeted: “By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

James Fallows tweeted back to him: “I know first hand that you are a very smart guy. So you must realize that ‘free speech’ applies to what *govt* regulates. That is only thing 1st Amend applies to. Any org *other* than govt has its own standards. Theaters, univs, publishers, churches. Standards, not ‘censorship.’” Somebody prattling on about free speech who doesn’t know this basic reality is a danger, and it’s why Musk thinks giving a platform to a man who incited a coup d’état against the United States of America in his own behalf is nothing more than a “free speech” issue. Communities kick people out all the time who violate the community’s rules. As Fallows writes, that’s not censorship, it’s standards. God help us.

If God won’t help us, maybe the European Union will. The EU passed a very tough law just a week or so ago, the Digital Services Act, that will require social media platforms to police hate speech and disinformation much more thoroughly and will subject them to huge fines if they fail to do so. John Cassidy has a terrific write-up in The New Yorker. Here’s hoping the EU’s act may give Musk pause. That plus Tesla stock, which has been tanking since the announcement.

Time’s Molly Ball has a smart piece on Musk’s politics and where all this might go. It is other than reassuring. Musk describes himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which is how all these billionaires describe themselves (that’s partly how they get good press; look, he’s for same-sex marriage, he did a good tweet about George Floyd!). But when push comes to shove, they’ll always think about their money first. Which means that if Musk thinks President Trump is going to save him money over President Biden, he’ll go Trump, hands down. It is the sickness of our age that these plutocrats have this kind of power.

Would I miss Twitter if it were gone? Oh, from time to time. But not really. We somehow muddled through for decades without it. In fact, I kinda liked my reading habits pre-Twitter. I woke up and read the Times and the Post, as I basically still do; but then, I actually visited websites, getting a calm, holistic sense of what various publications considered important, what their priorities were, instead of jumping around like a monkey on cocaine from this link to that link. This, too—this hectically disjointed presentation of reality, this war against attention span and contemplation—harms democracy because it harms deliberation. I sound like a fuddy-duddy, I know. I don’t care. And I know Twitter isn’t actually going anywhere, and no, I’m not leaving it. But I have zero doubt that democracy would be better off if Twitter and Facebook had never been invented, not only because they reward rage and bigotry and lies, but because they entrench the power of their multibillionaire owners over the rest of us.

Item two: Don’t laugh Lavrov off

So, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave a rather alarming interview with state television in Russia Monday. He said: “NATO is, in essence, going to war with Russia through a proxy and arming that proxy.” And of the possibility of nuclear war, he said: “The risk is serious, real. It should not be underestimated.”

It should be said that he spoke these words right after Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin had ratcheted up the rhetoric a bit by saying, “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Not sure about the wisdom of that. Yes, it is precisely what we want to see, but it’s just not the kind of thing that’s usually said out loud.

Most “serious” people still chuckle a bit at the idea that Putin might use a nuke. Well, maybe I’m not a serious person, but I don’t laugh it off. Russia has around 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons (the U.S. has around 200). Here’s a good rundown from the BBC of the various types. They have some that are 1 kiloton or less. For comparison, the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima was around 15 kilotons (the big nukes, designed to zip halfway across the globe to tattoo Moscow or Washington, are 700 or 800 kilotons).

So what’s 1 kiloton? Don’t misread me, I’m not saying it’d be fine. I am saying this: It’s small enough that damage wouldn’t be on the level your average person associates with nuclear holocaust. And it’s likely not the sort of act to which we would respond in kind, because to respond in kind is to invite explicitly nuclear escalation, and we don’t want any part of that. And this, to me, is what might make Putin feel that he could go ahead and roll that die. If he thinks America and NATO will thunder and express mountains of outrage but not actually do anything, well, wouldn’t he want the Russian people to see that—him making America look weak?

In addition to that, ponder this question. One consideration that has presumably kept many world leaders from pushing the nuclear button, aside from fear of retaliation, which obviously ranks first, is surely the idea that on some level they didn’t want to live with all that moral and historical disapprobation. Very few world leaders, even corrupt, scheming ones, want to go down in history as an all-time villain. But does Putin care about that? Seems to me a guy who’s done what he has already done, bombing hospitals and specifically targeting thousands of civilians, would have trouble seeing the moral distinction between those actions and dropping a small nuclear bomb.

So I don’t think it’s a crazy scenario at all. Would it lead to World War III? Unlikely. But it would certainly raise the stakes, as there would be pressure in the West to do … something or other. And it would be an awfully dark day for humanity.

Item three: Why are they mad at Madison Cawthorn?

The fun never ends with North Carolina Representative Madison Cawthorn. First he got popped by TSA for trying to carry a loaded gun onto a plane (an innocent mistake!), and now Tarheel State GOP Senator Thom Tillis wants an SEC investigation of Cawthorn for insider trading.

It’s always amusing to see what Republicans will and will not tolerate out of their own. Cawthorn is clearly a fascist at heart. That’s OK. Talking about coke-fueled sex parties is not. He has a tough primary on May 17 (though he did get Trump’s endorsement). Here’s hoping he loses and decides to spill the beans.

This week’s quiz: Built for speed

This week, as promised, the fun is back in the form of songs about cars.

Answers next week.

I’d love your feedback. I think. Email me at [email protected].

—Michael Tomasky, editor

Update your personal preferences for [email protected] by clicking here.
Copyright © 2022 The New Republic, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:

The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA

Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.