While the 2008 election finished with a great celebration at the victory of Barack Obama, it also dragged a grisly hard-right nationalism into the bright light of American politics. The GOP had flirted with nationalism in the 1992 and 1996 Presidential bids of Pat Buchanan, but this time, the hard-right rhetoric of the McCain-Palin campaign shot through the Republican base with such an intensity that the Secret Service expressed concern. The rise of a hard-right nationalist front in the Republican Party goes far beyond the antics of Sarah Palin. Hard-right nationalism is a monster now fully emerged in America, and to ignore it or simply ridicule it would be a grave mistake and a missed opportunity.
Some political analysts would argue that the 1992 and 1996 presidential bids of Pat Buchanan brought a similar kind of hard-right nationalism to the main stage of American politics, and they would be correct. In both those campaigns as a Republican candidate, Buchanan argued that America was under attack from without and within, rallying to his side those Republican voters who saw the election of a candidate as the first step on the road to total defeat for America's enemies. For Buchanan, those enemies were defined in racial terms, but also in terms of gender and social issues. The threats Buchanan campaigned equally against included Latinos, homosexuals, and anyone who supported Roe v. Wade. But Buchanan lost and lost badly, and his ideas ultimately left him without any significant support in the GOP.
The McCain-Palin campaign succeeded at a level beyond Buchanan's wildest dreams by including several elements that took Buchanan's racist, sexist and protectionist nationalism and replaced it with a logic of political violence.
Where Buchanan argued that American was under social and cultural threat, McCain and Palin argued that their opponent presented a physical threat to every American's property and life. They did this in two ways: (1) by accusing Barack Obama of being a 'terrorist' and (2) by accusing Barack Obama of being a communist.
The result was startlingly effective.
In 1992 and 1996, the most devoted followers of Pat Buchanan had deep concerns about the Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates who did not stand up for 'conservative values.' In 2008, by contrast, the most devoted followers of John McCain and Sarah Palin had more than deep concerns about ideology--they were deathly afraid of Barack Obama himself.
According to a recent article by the Telegraph, one of the results of Sarah Palin's campaign speeches in particular, was a spike in death threats against Barack Obama. The sudden rise of violent threats against the Democratic Party candidate were so high, that the Secret Service took note of it:
The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.
The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.
But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.
The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks. (link)
As the Telegraph's use of the phrase 'lynch mob' suggests, racism no doubt fueled some of the violent threats against the Obamas--and will, sadly, continue to do so. Yet, the majority of the themes pushed in the McCain and Palin stump speeches were not racist. They were nationalist.
Sarah Palin, for example, repeatedly invoked these nationalist themes in her speeches:
- John McCain is American, Barack Obama is "anti" or "un" American
- John McCain is a hero, Barack Obama is an enemy
- Barack Obama associates with terrorists
- Barack Obama is a socialist
- American belongs to John McCain supporters
In addition, these nationalist themes circulated widely in and around the networks that made up the base of the McCain-Palin campaign, even if they were never uttered directly by Palin or McCain:
- Muslims are a threat to America
- Barack Obama is a Muslim
- Barack Obama is a communist
- Barack Obama is a sexual deviant
- Barack Obama supports forced abortion
- Barack Obama seeks the destruction of Israel
- Barack Obama will seize all privately owned guns.
- Democrats support terrorists who seek to destroy America
- Democrats support foreign interests over American interests
Of course, 100% of these arguments are false. And yet, it would be hard pressed to find an American voter who did not at some point over the last two years find themselves faced with these arguments about Barack Obama. While there are no studies, yet, to show it, a startlingly high number of McCain-Palin supporters believed these all these lies about Barack Obama and spent a great deal of energy repeating and circulating them to others both in and out of the campaign. McCain-Supporters, in other words, not only believed and memorized these false accusations against Obama, but they understood the broader, unspoken logic that gave order and meaning to them.
That unspoken logic is the basic frame of hard-right nationalism.
Rather than try to pin hard-right nationalism down to a list of salient features, as is often the case, a better way to define it would be to express it as a sentence that tells a big story--a story that is never overtly spoken, but which is known and believed to be true by every hard-right nationalist:
America is under siege from the outside and the inside by foreigners who seek to take control of our property, end our way of life, and destroy us.
Nationalism by itself, of course, is a common feature of politics--even a productive component in the right doses. The problem in the McCain-Palin campaign was not nationalism by itself, but the hard-right nationalist big story that, by virtue of its intense concern with American 'under siege,' pushed every other concern off the table in the name of survival.
Hence, the hard-right nationalists in the McCain-Palin base were so concerned with protecting America from Barack Obama, that they lost all interest in health care reform, concern for the environment, improving education, and restoration of the economy. All that concerned them--concerns driven by the unspoken big story of hard-right nationalism--was defeating Barack Obama so that he would not take control of property, end the American way of life, and hasten the destruction of the country.
The problem with voters whose outlook is now defined by the big story of hard-right nationalism, in other words, extends far beyond the election. These voters know--know it so deeply that they never have to say it directly--that everything Barack Obama does from this moment until he is out of office will be 'to take control of our property, end our way of life, and destroy us.'
And whichever politician stands up first to invoke those hard-right nationalist concerns will find a ready made political base for whatever office or policy initiative her or she aspires to.
In the meantime, people who--as a result of the McCain-Palin campaign--now view the world through the hard-right nationalist big story will begin to develop habits to protect themselves from what they see as a threat to their property, their way of life, and their lives. This will mean: (1) hoarding cash and property, (2) isolating themselves from all but known like-minded people, and (3) arming themselves.
Needless to say, none of these habits are good for American society.
In the long run, however, beyond the habits of those who now adhere to the hard-right nationalist big story--what one might call the 'nationalist front' of the Republican party--the question remains as to what to do in response.
Certainly, some enterprising young politician on the right will try to become the de facto leader of the nationalist front of the Republican Party. Whether that person turns out to be Sarah Palin remains to be seen, but it may well be.
Also on the right, there will be leaders who see a political opportunity in this nationalist front, but who want to mold them into something else. Newt Gingrich is likely to be the person who steps into that role by trying, perhaps, to rally these hard-right nationalists to support his policy initiatives on oil drilling or healthcare.
But what about the left? So far, there does not seem to be any really interest in reaching out to hard-right nationalists from the left. Perhaps that makes sense in the short run, but in the long run the left must seek ways to encourage hard-right nationalists to take on a more productive, more meaningful big story.
The first step towards that end is for politicians on the left to recognize that hard-right nationalists on the right extend far beyond people suffering the most from economic hardship. The national front of the Republican Party includes people from all socio-economic levels. More important than simply reaching out with economic programs, the left must reach out with promise and vision that solves problems more compelling and more immediate than the threats posed by the hard-right nationalist narrative.
One opportunity in that direction is the ailing American automotive industry.
As the new Obama administration looks ahead towards January 20, 2009, they might consider the shrinking fortunes of the 'Big Three' in Detroit as an opportunity to present a rescue package that rallies the nation to a big story about the threats we face and the challenges we can achieve. Those threats include a catastrophic collapse of the manufacturing sector and growing paralysis in America's attempt to retool the transportation fleet for a an era of new fuel sources. Literally, this country is facing the chance to reinvent what is arguably the most influential object in American history--the car. And the way the Obama administration acts on and talks about that challenge has the potential to shatter the hard-right nationalist narrative and bring huge numbers of people back into the fold of American life.
Another opportunity in this same direction is the shameful state of American healthcare.
Looking ahead to 2009, the new Obama administration has a chance to advance a completely new way for Americans to think about healthcare. Currently, we are trapped as a nation in the idea that healthcare is a privilege of those with high-paying jobs, which has left us as a nation dependent on large private companies for our well-being. This formula has left nearly half the country stricken with fear at the prospect of a personal health crisis, and has pushed millions of Americans into a grim situation without any formal healthcare whatsoever. The way the Obama administration acts on and talks about this challenge has the potential to displace the hard-right nationalist narrative and usher millions of people back into a national conversation about care for our families.
There will be many opportunities for the Obama administration to take on this problem. Every policy area presents a chance for drawing hard-right nationalists away from one big story and into another. But first we must all acknowledge that the election left the country with a very real political problem, and then take seriously the challenge of reaching out and bringing even those voters who voice the most intolerable forms of nationalism back to the table.
(cross-posted from Frameshop)