That article is more aware of this than most, but why keep calling it a contradiction at all? It ascribes to them qualities of ostensibly good-faith actors but for some recent questionable action. They’re not that. They know they’re not that. We know they’re not that.

I think what bugs me about framing all these reports as primarily a contradiction (“the GOP just did X, but what about all those times they did Y?”) is that there’s actually no contradiction at all. They’re just tactical reactions to some new opportunity.

lol

The degree to which the two are distinct is consequential, but there is a function of even nominally distinct state power and capital whereby capital is legitimized and protected. To receive that benefit, it must be aligned.

Capital is obviously the beneficiary of state power, but the more complete critique shows it to be reliant on it.

The semantic content of their words is at most tactical and incidental to that message and should not be confused with good-faith discourse.