Tag Archives: White Christian Nationalism

The Real Identity Politics

One of the many things that exasperate me about what currently passes for political dialogue is the substitution of labels for efforts to communicate. (And yes, I find myself engaging in that practice from time to time–it’s easier to call the administration “fascist” than to carefully describe the behaviors that lead me to affix that label. Mea culpa.)

Although people on all sides of the political divide indulge in this dismissive exchange of epithets, there’s one particularly dishonest label that is increasingly employed by MAGA and the Right: Identity politics. The accusation is a companion to the “woke” label and the persistent attacks on DEI and similar efforts meant to erase the bigotries that have made life more difficult for women and minorities.

If there is one tactic that the MAGA movement has perfected, it is calling out its opponents for behaviors that are actually its own. A recent article from the New Republic pointed out that it is the Right, not the Left or Center Left, that is consistently engaged in “identity politics.”  The article was a conversation with Kimberle Crenshaw, a noted scholar of America’s various forms of bigotry and their interrelationship.

Crenshaw began by discussing the anti-Black animus that is the core of Trump’s agenda and appeal–an animus that has become too obvious for the rest of us to ignore–and the way in which anti-Black and anti-woman bias worked to defeat Kamala Harris.

I found one observation especially “on target,” because it gets to the root of the way labeling often deflects reality. Crenshaw points out that when the Right screams “identity politics” it defines identity politics in “terms of women, queer people, and Black folks.”

When Trump and MAGA world say things like, If you want to get anything done, you have to put white men in charge, they don’t call that identity politics. When they take all the books off the shelves that they think are about identity politics and leave Mein Kampf on the shelves at the Naval Academy, that’s identity politics that they don’t talk about. So the identity politics that is at the core of the anxiety that MAGA builds itself into is never named.

So it’s clear that there’s a particular kind of identity politics that they are willing to wrap themselves in. And that’s an old-school, long part of the American faction that wanted to think about the United States as a white, male, Christian country, which has now shown up in white Christian nationalism. That is the identity politics of the moment.

It is in pursuit of protecting the prerogatives of that identity–White Christian male identity–that MAGA and the Trump administration are attacking any and all efforts to promote equity in what is, despite their hysterical denials, a multiracial society.

That is their identity politics now. It’s called the assault on improper ideology. And if you want to see what it looks like in real time, look at their assault on DEI. The assault on DEI is basically if people of color, if women, if any people who don’t look like us, are in any way involved in something that is bad, we can say that they are the fault of it.

And what does that mean? If you happen to be the mayor of Baltimore when a ship collides into your bridge, because you’re Black and you are there, we can pin the responsibility on you. If there’s an air disaster over Washington, D.C., we can pin it on DEI. No proof, no nothing. All we have to do is claim it.

When I read this, my first thought was “of course! Why didn’t I see this before?” When I thought about that question–why I hadn’t recognized the real identity politics–I had to (grudgingly) give the Right credit for learning the lessons taught years ago by Frank Luntz and first employed by Newt Gingrich.

Luntz advocated using vocabulary that was carefully crafted to produce a desired political effect (an effect that didn’t include descriptive accuracy). He counseled GOP strategists to use the term death tax instead of estate tax, for example. Luntz has described his specialty as “finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”

I don’t know whether Luntz was personally involved in the (mis)use of the term “identity politics,” but that tactic–accusing opponents of something you yourself are doing–certainly bears his hallmark.

And that hallmark is misdirection, not communication. 

Comments

The “Welcome Nazis” Administration

It’s no longer possible for any sentient American to deny the virulent racism at the heart of MAGA and the Trump administration. The efforts to characterize DEI as “anti-White,” the dismissal of credentialed and competent Black officials and their replacement with buffoons whose only visible “credential” is White skin, the privileging of White South African immigrants…

Those well-publicized efforts have been joined by other, more covert moves to diminish recognition of the important roles played by minorities in our society–exemplified, most recently, by the removal of memorials to Black WW II soldiers in a Netherlands graveyard.

Two display panels in a cemetery in the village of Margraten commemorating African American soldiers were “quietly removed.”

The move has sparked shock in the Netherlands, with critics of the removal, including a community that cares for the graves, demanding answers about why the black American soldiers have all but vanished from displays.

MAGA’s embrace of bigotry is currently playing out more publicly in debates about Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with “out” neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes. But even while those internal MAGA battles rage, there’s growing evidence that the Trump administration’s racism and anti-Semitism isn’t simply grist for domestic politics. It’s internationally recognized.

My oldest son recently sent me a link to a story I’d missed.

A prominent far-right German activist has applied for political asylum in the United States, citing fears for her safety, as the Trump administration has signaled plans to prioritize protections for White refugees and Europeans who claim they are being targeted for their populist views.

The activist, Naomi Seibt, is a social media influencer and supporter of the nationalist, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which German authorities have labeled extremist.

Seibt is currently living in Washington, D.C., while her application is being processed.

That application is unusual–most candidates for asylum are people fleeing war or repressive regimes. The article notes that this “rare application from a citizen of a wealthy Western democracy” is evidence of the increasingly close ties between Germany’s far right and Trump’s MAGA movement. Seibt is close to Elon Musk and to several Republican lawmakers.

Seibt met on Oct. 30 with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida), who said in a statement that she is “personally assisting” with Seibt’s asylum application and making her case to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

In 2020, Seibt was the subject of a Washington Post profile highlighting her paid work for a think tank allied with the Trump administration casting doubt on the scientific consensus around climate change.

Seibt asserts that she feels unsafe in Germany, a country that has made speech that incites hatred, threatens public order or attacks human dignity illegal. She contends that police in Germany refused to act on her complaint that she had received death threats. (The German police declined to comment, noting they don’t speak about individual cases.)

The Trump administration is actively positioning itself to be a refuge for racists and neo-Nazis. According to the linked report,

The Trump administration has already granted refuge to dozens of White South Africans who claimed to be persecuted at home.

 The administration is contemplating a broader overhaul of the refugee resettlement process to prioritize such Afrikaners at the expense of groups traditionally seen as fleeing danger and persecution. A draft proposal from the State Department also would give consideration to “free speech advocates in Europe,” according to a former U.S. official who had seen the document.

The article quoted Michael Kagan, a professor of immigration law, who observed that It will be interesting to see whether Seibt’s application is scrutinized as rigorously as others, given that the status Seibt seeks is a difficult one to win.

Seibt, however, says she’s optimistic “because my beliefs strongly align with the Trump administration’s.” She’s right–and that observation should ring the alarm bells of every American who believes in human equality. Although the State Department declined to comment on Seibt’s case, a spokesperson for the department was quoted for the statement that the U.S. “supports all Europeans working to defend our common civilizational heritage.”

I’m pretty sure that MAGA’s definition of “our common civilization heritage” would be a good deal more restrictive than mine…

And there we are.

The difference between the Trump/MAGA vision of America and that held by the rest of us is the essential fault-line between today’s GOP cult of White Christian nationalists and the majority of Americans who accept (and even celebrate) the diversity of our multi-ethnic, multi-racial society.

The Trump administration wants to remake America into a fascist haven for neo-Nazis. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen.

Comments

Our Diverse History

There’s a reason the Trump administration and its White Christian nationalist base are so intent upon replacing education–especially classes in history–with a wildly inaccurate, “White-washed” version. The substitution of their fanciful and phony nostalgia for the inconvenient facts of America’s history supports their fond belief that only White Christians are real Americans.

Today’s historical revisionists like to insist that those who can trace their ancestry to the people they want to believe settled the country and/or who fought in the Revolutionary War are the “real” Americans. Since the country’s actual history is rather different from that version, they are working to subvert accurate historical instruction.

A recent guest essay in the New York Times focused on the history of this country’s diversity–a diversity that has existed from the nation’s beginnings. Titled “The Right Wing Myth of American Heritage,” the essay began by recounting a fight–in 1764 Pennsylvania–between Irish settlers and English Quakers. When Benjamin Franklin’s diplomacy averted an all-out conflict, the battle devolved to a “war” of pamphlets giving voice to what the author called “the toxic stew of grievances held by the wide mix of ethnic and religious groups in the middle colonies.”

There were pamphlets that accused the Quakers of taking secret satisfaction in the slaughter of Irish and German settler families at the hands of the Indians, and that called for Quakerism to be “extirpated from the face of the whole earth.” In the reverse direction, Irish Ulster Presbyterians were described as “Ulceration” “Piss-brute-tarians.” Franklin himself referred to the Irish settlers as “Christian white savages” and Germans as “Palatine boors” who refused to assimilate or learn English.

This was the state of relations among European settlers on the brink of the American Revolution. It’s a history that is inconvenient to the latest ideological project of the nativist right.

Those nativists insist that to be a “true American,” one must be descended from a group of founders who–they imagine– were united by a shared system of values and folkways, founders who (in their fevered imaginations) were all English-speaking Protestants from Northwest Europe. Those with bloodlines going back to those settlers–considered by nativists to be America’s “founding ethnicity”– are more American than those who lack such bloodlines, and they argue that immigration has “diluted” that “pure” American stock.

The MAGA bigots who embrace this ahistorical story are thrilled by Trump’s efforts to favor White asylum seekers over non-white ones, and his proposal to counteract growing diversity in America, which the Trump administration regards as a destabilizing cultural force. “The documents submitted in connection with the proposals assert that increasing diversity, “has reduced the level of social trust essential for the functioning of a democratic polity.”

The Times essay quoted Vice-President J.D. Vance’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, in which Vance disavowed the belief that the United States is a country built on a creed, and insisted that “America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history.” As the author notes, that mythology is historically delusional.

Americans have never been “a group of people with a shared history.” The founders were an assortment of people from different histories and backgrounds who coexisted — often just barely — because they didn’t have any other choice but to do so. This was true even within the British majority; Puritans and Quakers alike were banished from Anglican Virginia, Quakers were hanged in Massachusetts, and English colonists in New England and the Tidewater region sided with and in some cases fought for opposing sides of the English Civil War. America was a nation that emerged in spite of itself…

Mr. Vance, like other nativists, refuses to acknowledge that cultural diversity, with all of its prejudices and conflicts, is in fact the through line of American history. The United States isn’t exceptional because of our common cultural heritage; we’re exceptional because we’ve been able to cohere despite faiths, traditions and languages that set us apart, and sometimes against one another. The drafters of the Constitution tried to create that cohesion by building a government that could transcend our divisions.

As the essayist concludes, the achievement of the founders would have been far less remarkable had the colonists been a monoculture. It is the very rejection of the pretense that any one group deserves some kind of privileged status that has made us  American.

Comments

The Morphing Of Civil War

Americans who know anything about the country’s Civil War tend to dismiss warnings of a similar eruption. After all, the War Between the States was a war between states, a conflict with antagonists defined largely by geography. Were there Union sympathizers in the South? Pro-slavery citizens in the North? Sure. But the war was largely between Americans who inhabited specific regions of the still-new country. As pundits like to point out, that’s no longer the case; deep Blue cities are located in even the Reddest states, and the nation’s suburbs have been turning purple for several election cycles. That absence of a geographical division means another civil war is somewhere between unlikely and impossible.

A book titled “The Next Civil War” begs to differ.

Lincoln Square recently interviewed the author, Stephen Marche. Marche’s essential thesis was that our notion of what constitutes “war” is outdated.

What counts as civil war isn’t cannons at Gettysburg but something closer to “Ireland in the Troubles,”…. Low-level clashes, targeted killings, the steady presence of fear — these don’t come with banners or declarations, but they tear at civic trust all the same. That’s why the term “political violence” undersells what’s underway: It’s governance by threat, a society reshaped by intimidation. Once fear becomes the organizing principle, there’s no real boundary left between war and politics.

Stuart Stevens, who conducted the interview, noted that Marche had documented the steady “sorting” that has given us two diametrically opposed “armies.” He began with a telling statistic: the party that once competed for nearly 40 percent of the Black vote under Eisenhower, now hovers at eight percent under Trump. Over the years, the GOP purposely collapsed its coalition, abandoning a “big tent” and diversity in favor of loyalty. Partisan rewards now go to those most willing to comply, and as Stevens writes–and as we can now all see– the result is a hollowed-out political class.

In the Republican Party, competence has been traded for obedience.

Blue state governors resisting the authoritarianism of MAGA and the Trump administration are–at least in Marche’s telling–engaging in what has been dubbed a “soft secession.” The result is an emerging patchwork that signals national fragmentation.

Marche reminds readers that authoritarian regimes around the globe provide ample evidence that control doesn’t equal competence. Meanwhile, democracy is fading every day, despite the lack of a formal death notice. More troubling, politically motivated violence is rising.

Reviewers have described “The Next Civil War” as a “chilling and deeply researched work of speculative nonfiction.” Marche conducted nearly two hundred interviews with experts—civil war scholars, military leaders, law enforcement officials, secret service agents, agricultural specialists, environmentalists, war historians, and political scientists–in order to produce a book predicting a terrifying collapse of the America most of us have inhabited. Marche also interviewed soldiers and counterinsurgency experts, asking what it would take to control the population of the United States, and he tells us that “the battle plans for the next civil war have already been drawn up. Not by novelists, but by colonels.”

Thanks in large part to a fragmented, partisan information environment that facilitates misinformation and propaganda, promotes conspiracy theories, and deepens suspicions and bigotries, MAGA Republicans inhabit a vastly different reality than the one Democrats and Independents occupy. Our divisions go deeper than geography. Marche concludes that the United States as we’ve known it is coming to an end, with the only question being “how,” and in his book, he offers several scenarios to illustrate the possibilities.

I’m not convinced.

Granted, America has never been Camelot. Our elected officials have always included grifters and blowhards and outright criminals; our public policies even today fall far short of the lofty–“woke”– aspirations of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This country has always been an experiment, and people like  Marche have evidently concluded that the experiment is failing.

Marche’s book is part of a burgeoning industry of doom and gloom. Although it’s important to understand where these predictions of disaster are coming from–important to recognize the severity of the threats to our always-fragile union– it would be a mistake to give in to those predictions, to give up in advance.

Remember, those “woke” abolitionists won the last Civil War–and although it won’t be easy, We the People significantly outnumber the Trumpers who want to turn America into a White Christian Nationalist autocracy. We can win this one too.

Comments

Why We Must Resist

In a recent newsletter, Simon Rosenberg summed it all up.

First, let’s talk about Trump. That he is a wrecking ball, in clear physical and cognitive decline, and a wanna be dictator – not a President – has become impossible to ignore. In just a few months he has re-ignited inflation, slowed the economy, exploded the deficit, torched our alliances and damaged America’s standing throughout world. He is wrecking our health care system, attacking our world leading scientific and medical research centers, laying siege to the farm economy, throwing innocent people into foreign gulags without due process, invading our cities, recklessly walking away from the global consensus on climate change, leading an extraordinary coverup of a prolific sex trafficker and pedophile, enriching himself and his courtiers, and is now using the government to lawlessly pursue and silence his domestic opposition.

America under Trump has become less prosperous, less safe, less healthy, and less free, a far weaker nation. His regime represents a profound and historic betrayal of America and everything that has made us great, and the most powerful nation in history. All of this has also made him extraordinarily unpopular as the American people wake up to the destruction he is causing, wake up to that he really is pursuing an agenda of “more for me, less for you” now.

For sentient Americans, that summary is impossible to rebut. The obvious question, however, is: what can genuine patriots do about it? How can ordinary citizens who are horrified by the daily news (much of which might be introduced under the heading “what fresh hell is this?”) resist? More to the point, how can we come together to create a mass resistance movement?

I wish I had a snappy answer to that question. I don’t. But I do believe that massive participation in the upcoming No Kings protests will be essential. We need to turn out many millions of Americans who are ready and willing to send a. message of non-compliance, who publicly reject the lawlessness and the utter stupidity of the bigots who currently control the government–and not just in Washington, but in Red state capitols like Indianapolis.

Survey research tells us two things: one hopeful, one depressing. It’s hopeful that polling uniformly shows that a majority of Americans loath Trump and oppose virtually everything his administration is doing. It’s depressing that the minority is so large–depending upon the poll, somewhere between 37% and 42% of us still approve of him.

It’s hard for me to get my head around the fact that so many of our neighbors are perfectly willing to support a lawless and increasingly vicious regime, willing to ignore or excuse or even support the reality of the summary with which I opened this post. Many of them, no doubt, are unaware of much of it–they live in bubbles, getting their “information” from Fox and multiple other propaganda sites. To the extent that they are aware, they are evidently supportive of what they see as an exchange of constitutional civic equality for the White Christian male dominance they would prefer.

Historians tell us that the effort to turn America into a Christian theocracy–an effort summarized and documented in Project 2025– began decades ago. Normal Americans have largely been unaware of that effort as they’ve gone about their daily lives.  It’s understandable that the majority are only now waking to the magnitude of the threat. (The pace of that recognition has actually been abetted by the sheer buffoonery and incompetence of the Trump administration.) 

There are a number of signs, large and small, that the majority is finding its voice: the increasing number of spontaneous protests; the huge Jimmy Kimmel response; the efforts by lower court judges to hold the constitutional line and protect the rule of law… and the fact that Amazon is selling lots of pre-made protest signs, suggesting there’s a substantial market.

In the future, it may be necessary to mount massive boycotts of the companies bending the knee to our wanna-be autocrats. It may be necessary to participate in a national strike, or take other measures to resist the destruction of the America most of us love. But right now, No Kings Day is our vehicle, and we need to ensure that it demonstrates an enormous resistance by millions of citizens ready, willing and able to retake our country.

See you on OCTOBER 18TH.

Comments