Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream

Protestors at the Arizona state capitol last September

The vaccine wedge issue: It's about politics, not public health

For a long time, it has been obvious to some that mainstream Republican rhetoric and policy has turned dark, authoritarian, and openly menacing to democracy, truth and expertise. That is true among most of Republican elected politicians and other elites, radical right propagandists (Fox News), major donors, and rank and file supporters. Some people saw threat from the radical right immediately after the 2016 elections. Some saw it years sooner. Some still do not see the threats. Few or none in the FRP (fascist Republican Party) see any threats from themselves. The authoritarians consider the real threat to be evil Democrats, their tyrannical socialism, Nazism, critical race theory and/or various other dark things. 

The New York Times published an article, Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream, as another of its periodic warnings about the bad intent and tactics of the modern FRP.

Threats of violence have become commonplace among a significant part of the party, as historians and those who study democracy warn of a dark shift in American politics.

At a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats.

“When do we get to use the guns?” he said as the audience applauded. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” The local state representative, a Republican, later called it a “fair” question.

In Ohio, the leading candidate in the Republican primary for Senate blasted out a video urging Republicans to resist the “tyranny” of a federal government that pushed them to wear masks and take F.D.A.-authorized vaccines.

“When the Gestapo show up at your front door,” the candidate, Josh Mandel, a grandson of Holocaust survivors, said in the video in September, “you know what to do.”

From congressional offices to community meeting rooms, threats of violence are becoming commonplace among a significant segment of the Republican Party. Ten months after rioters attacked the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, and after four years of a president who often spoke in violent terms about his adversaries, right-wing Republicans are talking more openly and frequently about the use of force as justifiable in opposition to those who dislodged him from power.

Political violence has been part of the American story since the founding of the country, often entwined with racial politics and erupting in periods of great change: More than 70 brawls, duels and other violent incidents embroiled members of Congress from 1830 to 1860 alone. And elements of the left have contributed to the confrontational tenor of the country’s current politics, though Democratic leaders routinely condemn violence and violent imagery.

But historians and those who study democracy say what has changed has been the embrace of violent speech by a sizable portion of one party, including some of its loudest voices inside government and most influential voices outside.

In effect, they warn, the Republican Party is mainstreaming menace as a political tool.

From his earliest campaigning to the final moments of his presidency, Mr. Trump’s political image has incorporated the possibility of violence. He encouraged attendees at his rallies to “knock the hell” out of protesters, praised a lawmaker who body-slammed a reporter, and in a recent interview defended rioters who clamored to “hang Mike Pence.” 

Such views, routinely expressed in warlike or revolutionary terms, are often intertwined with white racial resentments and evangelical Christian religious fervor — two potent sources of fuel for the G.O.P. during the Trump era — as the most animated Republican voters increasingly see themselves as participants in a struggle, if not a kind of holy war[1], to preserve their idea of American culture and their place in society.  

Notably few Republican leaders have spoken out against violent language or behavior since Jan. 6, suggesting with their silent acquiescence that doing so would put them at odds with a significant share of their party’s voters. 

In that vacuum, the coarsening of Republican messaging has continued: Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, this week tweeted an anime video altered to show him killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and swinging two swords at Mr. Biden.

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the left-leaning group New America who has studied political violence, said there was a connection between such actions and the growing view among Americans that politics is a struggle between enemies.

“When you start dehumanizing political opponents, or really anybody, it becomes a lot easier to inflict violence on them,” Dr. Drutman said.

“I have a hard time seeing how we have a peaceful 2024 election after everything that’s happened now,” he added. “I don’t see the rhetoric turning down, I don’t see the conflicts going away. I really do think it’s hard to see how it gets better before it gets worse.” 

Violent talk has tipped over into actual violence in ways big and small. School board members and public health officials have faced a wave of threats, prompting hundreds to leave their posts. A recent investigation by Reuters documented nearly 800 intimidating messages to election officials in 12 states.

By now, it is unlikely that warnings about the rise of violent authoritarianism from experts will change many minds. The FRP has been a significant factor in the successful poisoning of the reputation of experts, both in the party and apparently among at least some people outside the party. 

Minds open to this warning are aware of the threat by now. Minds not open are going to stay closed. Minds of deceived cultists and fascists who know better rarely change in the face of inconvenient facts, truths or reasoning. That some yahoo can seriously ask a crowd “When do we get to use the guns? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” and the audience applauds should be a wake up call for nearly all Americans, but it isn't. 

That exemplifies how malicious and dark that FRP rhetoric and politics have become.

The role of Christianity

The NYT article asserts that white racial resentments and evangelical Christian religious fervor are two sources of discontent the FRP has played on to radicalize the entire party. Both racial resentment and religious fervor are core aspects of Christian nationalism and the focus of much of its divisive propaganda, lies and slanders. Some of the FRP really does believe they are fighting a holy war and the ends justify all means, including shooting Democrats dead. Some evidence suggests that FRP politicization of Christianity is driving some Americans away from Christianity. The Guardian wrote in April of 2021:  

Just 47% of the US population are members of a church, mosque or synagogue, according to a survey by Gallup, down from 70% two decades ago – in part a result of millennials turning away from religion but also, experts say, a reaction to the swirling mix of rightwing politics and Christianity pursued by the Republican party.

The evidence comes as Republicans in some states have pursued extreme “Christian nationalist” policies, attempting to force their version of Christianity on an increasingly uninterested public.

This week the governor of Arkansas signed a law allowing doctors to refuse to treat LGBTQ people on religious grounds, and other states are exploring similar legislation.  

“Many Americans – especially young people – see religion as bound up with political conservatism, and the Republican party specifically,” Campbell said.

“Since that is not their party, or their politics, they do not want to identify as being religious. Young people are especially allergic to the perception that many – but by no means all – American religions are hostile to LGBTQ rights.”

Questions: 

1. If dehumanizing a group or political party makes it easier to inflict violence, how should the FRP be treated? Is the label authoritarian or fascist too dehumanizing to be more helpful than not, e.g., it won't change many or any minds now even if the label is accurate?

2. The NYT suggests that FRP leadership does not speak out against violent language or behavior to avoid being at odds with the rank and file, but how much of the silence comes from their support for violent language or behavior, e.g., Gosar's unprovoked video showing him killing Ocasio-Cortez and trying to kill Biden?

3. Given decreasing public participation in Christian religion, is it reasonable to believe that Christian nationalism is still a potent force in the FRP, more or less on a par with special interest money? 

Footnote: 

1. The NYT wrote this on Jan. 11, 2021:

A potent mix of grievance and religious fervor has turbocharged the support among Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war. 

Before self-proclaimed members of the far-right group the Proud Boys marched toward the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, they stopped to kneel in the street and prayed in the name of Jesus.

The group, whose participants have espoused misogynistic and anti-immigrant views, prayed for God to bring “reformation and revival.” They gave thanks for “the wonderful nation we’ve all been blessed to be in.” They asked God for the restoration of their “value systems,” and for the “courage and strength to both represent you and represent our culture well.” And they invoked the divine protection for what was to come.

Then they rose. Their leader declared into a bullhorn that the media must “get the hell out of my way.” And then they moved toward the Capitol.