Tag Archives: history

Nazification

While Musk and his techno-nerds are busily dismantling agencies of the federal government that–among other things– keep planes in the air and food free from e coli, J.D. Vance is attacking America’s international alliances and giving aid and comfort to the neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere. 

Heather Cox Richardson (among several others) recently reported on Vance’s shameful performance.

At the conference on Friday, February 14, Vice President J.D. Vance launched what The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour called “a brutal ideological assault” against Europe, attacking the values the United States used to share with Europe but which Vance and the other members of the Trump administration are now working to destroy.

Vance and MAGA Christian nationalists reject the principles of secular democracy and instead align with leaders like Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. They claim that the equal rights central to democracy undermine nations by treating women and racial, religious, and gender minorities as equal to white Christian men. They want to see an end to the immigration that they believe weakens a nation’s people, and for government to reinforce traditional religious and patriarchal values.

Vance attacked current European values and warned that the crisis for the region was not external actors like Russia or China, but rather “the threat from within.” He accused Europe of censoring free speech, but it was clear—especially coming from the representative of a regime that has erased great swaths of public knowledge because it objects to words like “gender”—that what he really objected to was restrictions on the speech of far-right ideologues.

Vance followed his speech by throwing his support behind the neo-Nazi AfD, breaking protocol by refusing to meet with the German chancellor, and breaking a longstanding taboo by accepting a meeting with the leader of AfD.

According to The New Republic, “the United States of America is becoming part of a global fascist network.” 

Trump called Vance’s speech “very brilliant.”

It’s time to call a Nazi a Nazi. 

Vance is most certainly not “going rogue.” Musk’s neo-Nazi proclivities were obvious even before his “heil Hitler” salute–he turned Twitter into a cesspool of fascist, racist and anti-Semitic hate that would have earned plaudits from Der Fuhrur, and he has assembled a group of techie apparachicks who share his political orientation–whenever journalists investigate the social media trail left by of one of his operatives, they find horrifying–and unambiguous–evidence. For example, Marko Elez, who had access to the Treasury Department’s central payments system, has consistently advocated racism and eugenics. Musk has encouraged right-wing political movements in at least 18 countries. 

Of course, racism has long been Trump’s defining feature.

Thanks primarily to America’s role in the Second World War, most of us are unaware that, historically, significant numbers of Americans have been Nazi sympathizers. (Our history classes–unlike those in Germany–have shied away from reporting accurately and completely about slavery, let alone the nation’s very substantial history of neo-Nazi ideology.)

Historians have reported on the significant “inspiration” that Hitler took from the United States. 

When the Nazis set out to legally disenfranchise and discriminate against Jewish citizens, they weren’t just coming up with ideas out of thin air. They closely studied the laws of another country. According to James Q. Whitman, author of Hitler’s American Model, that country was the United States.

“America in the early 20th century was the leading racist jurisdiction in the world,” says Whitman, who is a professor at Yale Law School. “Nazi lawyers, as a result, were interested in, looked very closely at, [and] were ultimately influenced by American race law.”

While Jim Crow was a primary example, Hitler’s administration took additional lessons from the nation’s designations of Native Americans, Filipinos and other groups as non-citizens–“othering” those populations even though they lived in the U.S. or its territories. These models influenced the citizenship portion of the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jewish Germans of  citizenship and re-classified them as “nationals.”

The Nazis adopted some parts of Jim Crow laws wholesale, especially America’s anti-miscegenation laws, which prohibited interracial marriages in 30 of 48 states. As the linked article notes, the desire to ban Jewish and Aryan intermarriages presented the Nazis with a dilemma: How would they tell who was Jewish and who was not?  So the Nazis looked to America, and American jurisprudence on how to classify who belonged to which “race.”

Numerous scholars and pundits have pointed to the parallels between Trump II and Germany in the 30s. Fewer have noted the unsavory aspects of our own population’s history that are emerging once again to facilitate a new–and even more expansive– “final solution.”

We ignore that history and those parallels at our peril.

Comments

Return of the KKK

James Madison–my favorite Indiana historian, not my favorite Founding. Father–has recently written a column documenting what many of us have come to recognize: White Christian Nationalism is the contemporary KKK.

Madison should know. He wrote the book tracing the history of the Klan in Indiana.

The inauguration of Gov. Mike Braun and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith sparks thoughts of the similar inauguration 100 years ago, on January 12, 1925, when Edward Jackson and Harold Van Orman took their oaths. The past never repeats itself exactly, but in this case there are lines that rhyme and questions that cause concern.

At the dinner following Gov. Jackson’s inauguration, William Herschell recited his beloved poem, “Ain’t God Good to Indiana.”  In the reception line next to the new governor stood Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson, the man who boasted that “I am the law in Indiana.”  The two men had plans.

Madison notes that Jackson is considered the worst governor in Indiana history, and most Hoosiers know that Stephenson–Madison calls him “vile”–was a murderer and a blot on an already dark Indiana history.

The forces that created these two men remain with us. Indiana’s new governor and lieutenant governor are not Klansmen, but in the religious and political culture around them are scents of a century ago, when the Klan dominated the Hoosier state.

Those white, native-born Protestants who flocked to the Klan in the early 1920s called themselves 100% Americans. They boasted that only they were the real Americans. They created enemies to exclude and people to hate. Jews, African Americans, immigrants and, above all, Catholics were “the others.” By 1924, one political operative lamented, “Ideas of race and religion now dominate political thought.”

Those Klan boasts sound eerily like the rhetoric employed by MAGA cultists. Madison tells us that fear of Russian Bolsheviks and German Huns widened to include all immigrants and non-White Christians. The Klan repeatedly insisted on “America First.”

In rhetoric that sounds a lot like Trump’s, the Klan claimed that the country was going to “hell in a handbasket.”

A Christian crusade was the remedy. The Klan promised to enforce prohibition, censor Hollywood films, stop backseat sex, end political corruption, and keep women closer to the kitchen, nursery, and Sunday school room. Giving women the ballot, reported the Klan’s weekly newspaper, The Fiery Cross, “would foster masculine boldness and restless independence, which might detract from the modesty and virtue of womankind.”

Shades of today’s “tradwives.”

Madison explains that Klan members were convinced that they were the real, “100% Americans.” Much like today’s Christian Nationalists, they were motivated by White Supremacy. “Onward Christian Soldiers,” became the “beloved hymn of the Klan.”

Indiana had (and I think it is fair to say, still has) what Madison called “low expectations for government and high tolerance for corruption” –an environment that invited the state’s descent into a Klan stronghold.

Along with a governor, a majority—perhaps a supermajority—of the 1925 General Assembly were Klan members or sympathizers. Nearly all were white, Protestant and native born, joined by only four Catholics, four foreign born, and not a single African American or Jewish member.

The 1925 Klan legislature was mostly a bust. Internal divisions and self-aggrandizement led to only modest success in pushing through the Klan agenda. All assumed there would be other sessions to make good.

Madison’s column includes information about the resistance to the Klan. Stephenson’s conviction for rape and murder in 1925 added to the growing awareness of the Klan’s threat to basic American values, and Madison tells us that by 1930, the Klan was mostly gone in Indiana. “Nobody wanted to admit he’d ever belonged,” one reporter recalled.

Perhaps the most important observation in Madison’s essay is the following:

The intolerance in the last 50 years has come not from an out-of-date Klan but from a potpourri of sprawling and amorphous groups and movements, often linked to versions of Christian nationalism. As with the old Klan, today’s Christian nationalists tend toward binary choices of good and evil, toward a willingness to force their religious and cultural views on all of us, and toward use of government power in undemocratic and authoritarian ways that Indiana’s pioneers would have found appalling. Those pioneers wrote a Constitution in 1816 that contains the finest words ever penned on Indiana soil, including such commitments as “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies, or modes of worship.”

Too many of our lawmakers have failed to heed that state Constitutional provision.

You really need to click through and read the whole essay–and then join us at tomorrow’s rally to kick off resistance to the re-emergence of the Klan, this time wearing red hats rather than sheets.

Comments

George Packer On How We Got Here

I consider The Atlantic a truly indespensible source of information and commentary.  The publication is a welcome island of thoughtful and penetrating articles in our ocean of superficial punditry and outright propaganda. I subscribe to the old-fashioned print magazine, and the last issue included an introductory essay by George Packer that I found particularly insightful. (Okay, honesty compels me to admit that I found his essay so “on target” because he essentially agreed with my own analysis. I’m not immune to confirmation bias…)

The essay is titled “The End of Democratic Delusions.” I think the following paragraph tells us how America has come to this unfortunate place.

This new era is neither progressive nor conservative. The organizing principle in Trump’s chaotic campaigns, the animating passion among his supporters, has been a reactionary turn against dizzying change, specifically the economic and cultural transformations of the past half century: the globalization of trade and migration, the transition from an industrial to an information economy, the growing inequality between metropolis and hinterland, the end of the traditional family, the rise of previously disenfranchised groups, the “browning” of the American people. Trump’s basic appeal is a vow to take power away from the elites and invaders who have imposed these changes and return the country to its rightful owners—the real Americans. His victory demonstrated the appeal’s breadth in blue and red states alike, among all ages, ethnicities, and races.

If we look back at history, at other periods of rapid, dizzying change, we see similar reactions and upheavals. The Industrial Revolution sparked labor uprisings, anarchist movements, and clashes between traditional monarchies and then-emerging democratic and socialist movements. The Protestant Reformation fractured the Catholic Church’s authority, reshaped Europe’s religious and political map, sparked religious wars (think the Thirty Years’ War), and devastated large parts of Europe. There are plenty of other examples.

As Packer notes, reaction is insular and aggrieved, and it “paints in dark tones.” It’s characterized by an intent to undo what most of us see as progress and “reverse history, restoring the nation to some imagined golden age when the people ruled.”

When Democrats lose a presidential election, they descend into a familiar quarrel over whether the party moved too far to the left or to the center. This time the question seems especially irrelevant; their political problem runs so much deeper. The Democratic Party finds itself on the wrong side of a historic swing toward right-wing populism, and tactical repositioning won’t help. The mood in America, as in electorates all over the world, is profoundly anti-establishment. Trump had a mass movement behind him; Kamala Harris was installed by party elites. He offered disruption, chaos, and contempt; she offered a tax break for small businesses. He spoke for the alienated; she spoke for the status quo.

As Packer also notes, we are at a time when the parties have once again switched identities. The GOP of Lincoln was anti-slavery and the Democratic party of the time (and for many years after) was the party of White supremacy; in the 20th Century, they essentially traded places. More recently, another major switch made Democrats rather than Republicans the party of institutionalism. As Packer points out, that realignment has been going on since the early ’70s:

Democrats now claim the former Republican base of college-educated professionals, and Republicans have replaced Democrats as the party of the working class. As long as globalization, technology, and immigration were widely seen as not only inevitable but positive forces, the Democratic Party appeared to ride the wave of history, while Republicans depended on a shrinking pool of older white voters in dying towns. But something profound changed around 2008.

Packard points to three of those profound changes: a growing “conviction that the political and economic game was rigged for the benefit of distant elites; a sense that the middle class had disappeared; and the absence of any institutions that might have provided help, including the Democratic Party.”

Packer is hardly the only political scientist who has reminded Americans that the reactionary period we are experiencing is global. He spends much of his essay focusing on the challenges posed by what he calls “The Trump Reaction,” which he also says is more fragile than many believe, thanks to the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with ideologues, opportunists, and crackpots who will inevitably turn on each other–and the even more obvious fact that Trump has absolutely no interest in governing.

Prior eras of rapid change have also sparked chaos and irrational reaction. History tells us that “this too shall pass.”

We really need to figure out how to speed that passage.

Comments

The Costs of Rejecting Reality

Thanks to the information environment we inhabit, we Americans increasingly inhabit alternate “realities.” I’ve put quotation marks around the term “realities,” because it has become very clear that the universe in which too many Americans have chosen to reside is at odds with–indeed, incompatible with–empirical reality. The amount of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and other varieties of mis- and dis-information readily available online greatly facilitates the very human desire to indulge in confirmation bias–and the failure of civic and scientific education has facilitated widespread acceptance of “realities” wildly at odds with fact and credible evidence.

It seems pertinent, therefore, to ask: what happens when people choose to deny empirical evidence and facts they find inconvenient or annoying? What, for example, might we expect from RFK, Jr’s refusal to understand the science of vaccines, or the demonstrable benefits of a fluoridated water supply?

History is instructive. I did some (very superficial) research, and found fascinating (and depressing) evidence of humanity’s past experience with the denial of science and empirical inquiry.

Before acceptance of germ theory, for example, many people believed diseases like cholera were caused by the presence of  “miasma” (bad air). As a result, governments took no effective measures to control cholera outbreaks–and doctors who warned about the dangers of contaminated water were ignored. The result was thousands of unnecessary deaths.

The tendency to ignore and reject scientific evidence hasn’t been confined to America. In Russia, in the early 20th Century, a Soviet agricultural scientist named Lysenko rejected the science of genetics in favor of pseudoscientific ideas like Lamarckian inheritance (the belief that physical changes made to an organism during its lifetime would be  passed on–inherited by the organism’s offspring.) Stalin’s government embraced Lysenko’s theories, suppressed the scientists who supported Mendelian genetics, and based its agricultural policies on Lysenkoism. The result was widespread crop failures and famines that caused millions of deaths.

I found plenty of other historical examples: delays in accepting the science of plate tectonics that hindered advancements in understanding earthquakes, volcanic activity, and geological hazards. Initial medical responses to the HIV/AIDS crisis that were hampered by widespread stigma and misinformation. Vaccine disinformation (especially the consistently debunked claim that vaccines cause autism) has led to reduced vaccination rates, and the resurgence of diseases like measles, polio, and whooping cough that medical science had virtually eradicated.

Numerous studies have confirmed that the MAGA movement’s resistance to masks and vaccines during the COVID pandemic cost the U.S. thousands of lives–a far greater percentage of American citizens died than the percentage of people living in countries where the population had more respect for medical science. Delays in lockdowns, resistance to public health measures, and vaccine rejection caused millions of preventable deaths and significant economic damage.

And I don’t even want to theorize about the likely consequences of climate change denial…

Ironically, MAGA’s stubborn resistance to empiricism and fact flies in the face of what actually made America great.

America’s founders were students of the Enlightenment, especially the philosophy of John Locke, often considered the father of empiricism. The Founders committed themselves to unleashing the power of reason to advance knowledge and to build an effective and responsive government. They believed that science and democracy worked together, and often expressed their intent to base government policy on the best available data and the most up-to-date, empirical understanding of the world.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in 2012, “science and democracy, working hand in hand, have proved a powerful combination that has helped our nation to prosper and thrive throughout our history.”

That partnership of science and government is what enabled America’s economic “greatness.” The country’s economic growth  has significantly depended on empiricism and technological innovation; advances in industries like aerospace, computing, and biotechnology have all been dependant upon rigorous science and empirical evidence. Respect for science and empiricism has also been crucial to the development of the military defense technologies that have made the U.S. a world power. (Think radar, GPS, and nuclear energy.)

Trump and the MAGA movement are the absolute antithesis of the respect for science, evidence and expertise that is actually at the base of America’s global preeminence. The collection of clowns, buffoons, and know-nothings that Trump has nominated for his cabinet make a mockery of MAGA’s promise to return America to greatness.

What is that famous Santayana quote? Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

Welcome to Lysenkoism.

Comments

It Can Happen Here

Most sentient Americans know this election isn’t normal–and that it’s pivotal. And from all indications, it is very, very close.

If there was ever any doubt about the basis of Donald Trump’s appeal, his recent speeches should dispel them. As his mental faculties–such as they were– continue to deteriorate, he has become less inhibited, engaging more directly in appeals to fear and– especially– hate.

As a recent article in The Bulwark reported,

The Two Minutes Hate was a famous feature of Orwell’s portrayal of Oceania in 1984. The Two Months of Hate is now a notable feature of the 2024 U.S. presidential contest. Donald Trump and his allies are closing this campaign with two months of hate in a way we’ve never seen before. And it could work.

 Trump has “abandoned any pretense of debating real issues or proposing serious programs. “In the closing weeks of this campaign, any mask of democratic normalcy and civic decency has been tossed aside.” He hasn’t just accused immigrants of “poisoning the blood” of the country, he has also accused Americans who disagree with him of being “the enemy within.”

Trump told Maria Bartiromo that an even bigger problem than “the people who have come in who are totally destroying our country” is “the enemy from within.” He called them “very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics.” And he said they could “be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”…

Are Trump and Vance being punished at the polls for this intensification of lying and hatred? Not at all. The Trump-Vance ticket seems to have gained a bit in the last two weeks, just as the hatred and darkness have become more central to their message. It turns out that what it means to be an undecided or swing voter is to be undecided about the choice between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. And the swing voters seem to be swinging towards authoritarianism.

It’s shocking and depressing. One could tell oneself in 2016 that Trump won despite the lies and hatred. Now if he wins, it would seem to be because of the lies and hatred.

If this seems chillingly unAmerican to most of us, it’s because we’ve opted to ignore the long history of American Nazism. That history was traced in a 2021 Washignton Post article.

Even during World War II, as the United States mobilized to defeat Nazi Germany and portrayed itself as an “arsenal of democracy,” Americans remained divided about who deserved to be treated as a full citizen. In an era when restrictive nationalist and authoritarian movements took power across Europe and Asia, even explicit appeals to Nazism attracted adherents in the United States.

As the article pointed out, the idea central to Nazi fascism — the argument that “real” Americans  needed to be protected from those threatening “others” — was hardly foreign to Americans steeped in deep traditions of racism and nativism.

Trump recently announced that he will be holding a rally in Madison Square Garden–bringing to knowledgable ears an echo of  the Bund’s February 1939 rally at Madison Square Garden. That rally drew more than 20,000 enthusiastic supporters under banners that included swastikas and images of George Washington.

It wasn’t just the Bund.

Father Charles Coughlin — a Roman Catholic priest with a popular radio broadcast in the 1930s — went even further, mixing anti-semitic rhetoric with direct support for Adolf Hitler. Eventually forced off the air in 1942 and nearly defrocked by the church for his pro-Nazi politics, Coughlin’s near-decade of national popularity reflected the appeal those beliefs had for a measurable segment of the American public.

The Post profiled a number of other prominent Nazi sympathizers, for whom “democracy was worth sacrificing to preserve the dominance of the White race — as they defined it.”

Just as the revived KKK in the 1920s enjoyed mainstream support, the ideas animating U.S. fascist groups were hardly fringe. In April 1940, when asked whether “Jews have too much power and influence in this country,” a national majority answered, “yes.” After U.S. entry into the war, public participation in pro-Nazi organizations ceased, but the sentiments remained. In July 1945, the number of Americans who responded “yes” to this question about influence had risen to 67 percent.

The war drove American Nazis underground, but nativism, anti-semitism and authoritarian tendencies did not vanish, even in the fastest-growing city in the country, Los Angeles. Los Angeles had been one of the largest centers of Klan activity outside the South in the 1920s and 1930s. A Klan member had been elected to the Los Angeles City Council in 1923.

Polling tells us that America’s Presidential race is essentially tied. If that’s accurate, it can happen here.

Comments