Election Brought Hard-Right Nationalism Into Light
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)
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Alec Baldwin: The Rise and Fall of Detroit
There can be only one legitimate response to the auto crisis. Let energy conservation and fuel efficiency rule the day. Let the carmakers go under.
Tom Matlack: Winning the War at Home
Even though he's no longer in combat, he's still a commander, now in a war to save the auto industry from itself.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I still don't understand how people can believe that Barack Obama is Muslim, while also believing that he is anti-American for his association with REVEREND Wright. How is that not dissonant?
Well one sign of Nationalism that he didn't mention is a lack of rational thought when forming ones views. Nationaists form their beliefs based on negative emotion, not logic or reason. This leads to contradicitons in views like you found...
Change is always more of a threat to those with less knowledge, less life experiences or less imagination to work with. During uncertainty, nostalgia always has great appeal. A politician tells the gullible their problems are caused by OTHERS and that they are the REAL patriots. He offers simple solutions, provides dogma and slogans for the unthinking, waves the flag and makes them really really SCARED . Then he gives them someone to hate, someone like you - or me - or those others who are different. We know what can happens next because we've seen it before. Demagogues flourish in bad times and their army are the ignorant and fearful. If we abandon the low or no information people - someone else will adopt them - to our peril.
I agree with so much of what you say - the Republican message was so blatant that it was hardly even in "code". It was scary to so many of us that we voted for Barack! Which is why I'm confused by this:
"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.
To me it would have been startlingly effective if they had WON! The fact that they LOST means that in many cases it was not only ineffective but indeed backfired on them.
In terms of the majority, you're correct, it did. It appalled educated moderates who may have seriously considered voting for McCain at one point. It definitely creeped out independents of every education level; this is why Obama ended up winning.
But I think the idea is that all these accusations have been taken up by the right wing base as fact. The people that would have never voted for any Dem, let alone Barack Obama, are the kind like that woman at the town hall meeting who said she was scared because Obama was "Arab", like the woman from FL who interviewed Joe Biden and decided it was appropriate to lead into a question with a quote from Karl Marx. The danger is that even though these people don't consititute the majority, they genuinely believe these patently false things: they really belive that Obama is a socialist, they really belive he's Muslim - what's more, they really believe that being Muslim in and of itself is great cause for concern. McPalin has made sure that some people honestly believe that on Jan 20, we're going to swear in a radical, anti-American Islamic Marxist. No wonder there are threats on Obama's life.
The McPalin rhetoric was startlingly INeffective at winning the election, but what they were efffective at was striking fear and a conspiratorial spirit into susceptible republicans. They would call this "solidifying the base," I think a fair characterisation is "fear mongering".
This was a most insightful post. While I, like many other Progressive Activists have been relaxing and savoring Barack Obama's victory, it is clear that a cancer still exists in this nation. A survey conducted by the University of Texas, a few weeks before the election, found that 23% of Texans thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. If that is the case, the misinformation and fear campaign extended far beyond Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox News. This is an appalling statistic, especially when many of these uber-nationalists are poorly educated and well armed. We have to find a way to minimize the impact of the violent hatred being spewed by talk radio. I hesitate to mention the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, because that may further inflame their hatred.
I agree with most of it , but definitely not with the term "protectionist" which the author wants to give a negative meaning to the word. We want fair trade, not the so-called "free" trade that has been shown to be anything but free. China and other countries do take us for suckers, all in the name of "free" trade.
Let's put an end to the practice of deceptive labeling. Let's get real. The era of the ideologue is over!
My preference would be to mock the nationalistic right movement and call it out for exactly what it. Schopenhauer said it best:
"National character is only another name for the particular form which the littleness, perversity and baseness of mankind take in every country."
I only had time to read a few comments but other readers must have noticed an important ommission in your article which is the underlying psychological reasons that raising the fears of nationalism works so effectively. Hitler and his henchmen famously exploited this human weakness. Once you explore that avenue, perhaps more insights on overcoming this basest of instincts will surface.
Mr Jeffrey Feldman :
I celebrate your article and thank you for it.
MSNBC did an analysis. If you suppress all Black Votes then Obama loses. That does not happen with Youth or with Latinos. However most of the Obama Votes were White votes.
But racism still exists and the Racist States and Counties are easily detected examining the election data. Examine all those States and Towns where Obama lost by a bigger margin than Kerry in 2004.
I think that we have to study very hard to understand what happened and to examine the tatistical "what if" possibilities. There is racial progress, and many Whites that were very racist in the past have changed their behaviour, and voted for Obama in big numbers, making his victory possible.
Self Interest defeated Racism. Economic Salvation in times of crisis defeated Racism. Of course !!!
I am trying to understand the evolution of Racism and of positive feelings about other Races and Ethnics. And I am also studying the behaviour of Youth in this election. And the future possibilities, State by State.
http://rac
http://mil
Vicente Duque
Unfortunately, I don't have any hard-academic sort of reply for you, but there's a funny article on the onion that seizes on just this idea: that it took a very serious downturn for self-interest to outweigh racism.
http://www
We can take our nation back for all Americans, not just hard-right ideologues. Maybe we already have, by electing Barack Obama. I've always been a patriot – my ancestors were American revolutionaries – but for the first time in my life, I'm truly deeply proud to be an American. We made history Nov. 4th by putting down another part of our burden as a former slave-state, and that's never going to change. But we might. I'm even proud of the right wing – for voting for against McCain and Palin and their radical agenda and inflammatory tone. If the next eight years goes well, the flag might belong to every American, once more.
I just read a blog, with comments, about Obama's idea to require 50 hours of community service for kids in public schools (can't find link). Commentors call this slavery, they say they will home school their kids if this is a requirement.
Community service has been a requirement in Chicago Public Schools (high school) for some years now. The idea is to give kids the experience of helping someone such as in a senior center, etc., but it is primarly a learning experience, not work.
They complain his new website is simply a fundraising ploy.
I just don't think people with this kind of thinking can be reasoned with . I'm not saying egnore them and they will go away, but I don't think feeding into them by arguing or trying to convince them is a good idea either. This is Hate and Fear. And yes, ignorance. I do not think the should be ignored but gie them time, and a chance to experience something different - like the story of the right leaning man who was taken to canvass for Barack by his wife, and ended up being an active Obama supporter. It was the hope and light in people's eyes that changed him.
You can't reason with unreasonable people. They think that hope is brainwashing. I truly believe that people are used to being negative,angry and afraid. What a shame that hope and caring is foreign to so many! But we cannot give up hope on THEM.
My sons 8th grade teacher (block class) required the kids to do 5 hours of community service each quarter. Since minors can't volunteer alone I went with him. We are now regulars at the Oregon Food Bank. It's really rewarding. It's also very enlightening because when we are done they put numbers to our tasks and it is usually something like this "your packaging of food today will help 120 families eat for a week."
I think that in this country when everyone turns 18 they should be required to do 2 years of selective service either community service (in our country) or military service. I fought to avoid the Vietnam war in the 60's and ended up with a high lottery number so I didn't have to go in but I would have jumped at the chance to serve my neighbors rather than the Military Industrial Complex.
They won't home school their kids--
Let the kids volunteer--they will love it--and teach their ignorant parents what rewards caring for others can bring.
Could someone tell "The Base" (The Rep Nationalist Base that is..) what Al Quaida means in English?
Beautiful! LOL
There will always be a fringe of society (on both right and left) and I don't expect them to all of sudden move to the center and take a more practical approach to politics and government. I don't think we can wait for them to "die off." Their numbers are getting smaller as some have moved away from their nationalist parents and/or parts of the country.
Keep in mind that Obama has only been President-Elect for less than a week, and he still won't be taking office for over 2 months. It will take some time for people to get used to seeing a black president. Some may never get used to it, but after 4 years (hopefully 8) that number will probably shrink. Some people may always see him as a muslim extremist and will believe any garbage that is thrown from talk radio, but again, after a period of time, they may start to realize that the talk doesn't match the person.
I am almost certain that Obama will push an aggressive and practical agenda from the start. Our country is in such a sad state that bold moves are necessary. He has proven to be an intelligent, thoughtful and pragmatic person who understands fully that 50 million people did NOT vote for him. And don't forget - he needs to be re-elected in order to make any positive long-term change, and a first-term president is always aware of that fact.
Yeah, you're right. There's a lot of racist people in this country. Don't be threatening you're not going to vote for him. You didn't this time. You won't the next. I guarantee you when people see how an ADULT runs a country, that 50 millions won't BE 50 million the next time. Ronnie Raygun days are OVER and OUT. Roger that?
The most frightening aspect of the Far Right, is that there are just as many "Educated" rabid repub supporters as there are rural, blue collar believers. I have come across many professional, college educated ardent repubs who become very angry and downright inflamed when confronted with what they consider to be "Leftist agendas".
I had conversations with many people about this election, but I had the misfortune of getting into a heated political discussion with a Computer Programmer acquaintance. He literally shouted me down, worse than the Construction worker of McCain/Palin rally fame. It was an ugly moment that devolved into a litany of rightwing rhetoric that would have made Sean Hannity proud. My perception of, and respect for this person is forever changed, but then again, he might say the same of me- even though I barely had a chance to speak, as I was wiping flying spittle off of my face.
It's a Ponzi Scheme. They know it. They believe in many classes of citizens like the caste system in India. They want to look at some as inferior so they can profit on that. Ironic that these "religious" reichwingers love them some "Darwinist" economy. Don't that get all? LOL!
I believe the right-wing wackos will go back under the radar and voters will not care. All the cancerous bigotry, racial and religious intolerance that was exposed will be glossed over and forgotten.
I'm sorry. I'm very pesiemistic that the ideology held by this faction of Americans will never be confronted.
Why do we give neo-nationalists credence (other than Palin's shameful pandering)? They do not own this country, they do not own religion, they do not own American ideals and they are NOT in charge. Furthermore, they are not nationalists, they are bigots. And while I agree that nationalists should be monitored, they should continue to be marginalized.
I like the way Jeff summed it up, we've got to set certain economic and health care conditions right in this country for the far right wingnuts to stop beeing so nutty. Think of it as getting sand out of a bucket without pouring it out. Take the hose, put it on high pressure and aim it into the bucket (good cool clear life affirming water) and eventually the sand will just flow out.
What makes me happy is that I think Obama knows this way of working things.
She will never win the presidency-- unless it's just her against Homer Simpson
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
