Dr. Richardson confounds lots of the media’s assumptions about this second. She constructed a enormous and devoted following on Facebook, which is broadly and sometimes precisely considered in media circles as a dwelling of misinformation, and the place most journalists don’t see their private pages as significant channels for his or her work.
Business & Economy
She additionally contradicts the stereotype of Substack, which has turn into synonymous with providing new alternatives for particular person writers to show their social media followings into careers outdoors massive media, and at instances seems to be the place purged ideological factions go to regroup. That’s true of Never Trump Republicans pushed out of conservative media, whose publications, The Dispatch and The Bulwark, are the most important manufacturers on the platform (simply above and beneath Dr. Richardson’s income, respectively). And it’s true of left-leaning writers who’ve damaged bitterly with parts of the mainstream liberal consensus, whether or not round race or nationwide safety, from the Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald to the Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias to the firebrand Matt Taibbi, whom Dr. Richardson unseated from the highest slot in late August.
Dr. Richardson occurred into this frontier of the media enterprise just about by likelihood. When readers on Facebook began suggesting she write a e-newsletter, she realized she didn’t wish to pay lots of of a month for a business platform, and jumped at Substack as a result of it could permit her to ship out her emails with out cost to her or her readers. Substack makes its cash by taking a proportion of writers’ subscription income, and she or he mentioned she felt responsible that the corporate’s help workforce wasn’t getting paid for fixing her recurring downside: that her in depth footnotes set off her readers’ spam filters. She appeared intensely uncomfortable speaking concerning the cash her work is bringing in.
“If you start doing things for the money, they stop being authentic,” she mentioned, including that she knew that was each a privilege of her tenured professorship and “an old Puritan way of looking at things.”
Like the opposite Substack writers, Dr. Richardson is succeeding as a result of she’s providing one thing you may’t discover within the mainstream media, and certainly that many editors would assume was too boring to assign. But in contrast to the others, it’s not her politics, per se: She thinks of her politics as Lincoln-era Republican, however she is in in the present day’s phrases a pretty standard liberal, disturbed by President Trump and his assaults on America’s establishments. She’s a historian who studied below the good Harvard Lincoln scholar David Herbert Donald, and her work on 19th century political historical past feels notably related proper now. This spring, she printed her sixth guide, “How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America,” an prolonged assault on the sort of nostalgia that animates Mr. Trump’s struggle to protect Confederate symbols. The face of the South in Dr. Richardson’s guide is a bitterly racist and sexually abusive South Carolina planter and senator, James Henry Hammond, who referred to as Jefferson’s notion that every one males are created equal “ridiculously absurd.”
What is uncommon is to convey a historian’s assured context to the day’s mundane politics. She invoked Senator Hammond when Representative Kevin McCarthy and different Republican leaders signed on to a Texas lawsuit searching for to reverse the presidential election, evaluating the Republican motion to moments in American historical past when legislators explicitly questioned the very concept of democracy.
“Ordinary men should, Hammond explained, have no say over policies, because they would demand a greater share of the wealth they produced,” she wrote.