Rep. Steve King of Iowa is a strange dude. He exhibits one of the rarer qualities in conservative circles, in that he’s completely unapologetic about being a white supremacist. He just made the following remark in an interview with the New York Times:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
It’s an almost refreshing degree of candor. And, yet, he still won’t embrace being a racist.
Mr. King, in the interview, said he was not a racist. He pointed to his Twitter timeline showing him greeting Iowans of all races and religions in his Washington office. (The same office once displayed a Confederate flag on his desk.)
At the same time, he said, he supports immigrants who enter the country legally and fully assimilate because what matters more than race is “the culture of America” based on values brought to the United States by whites from Europe.
It’s true that almost all Republicans will deny being a racist but then they almost all will deny being white supremacists or white nationalists, too. Rep. King still sees some merit in distinguishing between these terms, and it’s not clear why he thinks “racist” is toxic but the other terms can be safely embraced.
If we take King to mean what he says, he’s convinced that western civilization is superior to other cultures, which isn’t all that unusual a view, and he’s convinced that race is the primary explanation for its superiority, which is a decidedly less prevalent sentiment. Yet, it used to be a mainstream view. Take the following statement from Abraham Lincoln, delivered during the 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas in Charleston, Illinois.
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.”
Lincoln’s true private views were probably more enlightened than this, but not by a whole lot. The racial superiority of whites was taken as too much of a given to be worth challenging in a debate over the expansion of slavery, and it’s not clear that Lincoln questioned this himself.
These basic assumptions persisted in the mainstream of American politics for another hundred years, and not only in the South. In 1957, as Congress debated a civil rights law, William F. Buckley wrote Why the South Must Prevail in his magazine, the National Review.
Here’s part of the argument he made:
The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
Buckley went so far as to rationalize denying people the vote because they had an inferior culture. It was by then an outlier view in Buckley’s New York City, but not in much of the rest of the country, and certainly not among the segregationists in the South.
The argument against civil rights in the 1950’s and 1960’s, as delivered by Southern Democratic politicians, was unapologetically based on white supremacy. It wasn’t until after the success of the Civil Right Era that white supremacy became a minority view among whites in the 1970s.
“The 1970s” is thus probably the correct answer to Rep. King’s query: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”
In support of this, I’ll note that Republican strategist Lee Atwater made his most infamous comment during an interview in 1981.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
This doesn’t so much date when racist language became “offensive” as it pegs when it became a political vulnerability in most of the country. It became more costly to be openly racist once blacks won the right to vote, and after the liberalization of immigration laws in 1965, it gradually became most costly to openly embrace white supremacy.
This cost hasn’t been sufficient as of yet to deny Steve King his western Iowa congressional seat, but he barely won reelection and has now invited a primary challenger.
On Wednesday, Mr. King drew a formidable challenger for his Fourth District seat in the 2020 Republican primary: Randy Feenstra, an assistant majority leader in the State Senate, who said Mr. King had left Iowa “without a seat at the table” because of “sideshows” and “distractions.”
For now, at least, these views are still politically viable enough to account for the present occupant of the White House.
Mr. King may have been ostracized by some Republicans over his racist remarks and extremist ties, but as much of the nation debates immigration, his views now carry substantial influence on the right.
Early in Mr. Trump’s term, the president invited Mr. King — who was long snubbed by establishment Republicans like the former House speaker John A. Boehner — to the Oval Office. There, the president boasted of having raised more money for the congressman’s campaigns than anyone else, including during a 2014 Iowa visit, Mr. King recalled in an interview with The Times.
“Yes, Mr. President,” Mr. King replied. “But I market-tested your immigration policy for 14 years, and that ought to be worth something.”
Mr. Trump is doing all he can to revive white supremacy as a political strategy, and it’s not going too far to say that the government shutdown that is now underway is the truest test yet of his potential for success.
Certainly you are correct that Der Trumper is the most open proponent of a return to white supremacy as a political strategy, but let’s not forget the racist element in our noble Repubs’ strategy to oppose Obama from 2008 on. Of course, RMoney and Boner did not say “what’s wrong with white nationalism?” like Trumper or “what’s wrong with white supremacy?” like Sturmbannfuhrer King. But they laid the groundwork for today’s National Trumpalism.
Speaking of Nazis, I would also throw out Herr Hiter’s contribution to a more global rejection of white supremacy. The Nazi conception of the German people as a “master race” became somewhat, um, discredited, and caused a definite re-think of all this celebration of white “civilization”, post 1945.
There is simply no doubt where Trumper and King would have been in the politics of 1920s Germany, they would have been charter members of the National Socialist party, just as they would have been enthusiastic Slavers in antebellum America, and staunch loyalists in pre-Revolutionary days. That is what the “conservative” mindset means. If they think otherwise, that’s self-delusion.
Of course in bygone days, it was routine to speak of Germans and Frenchman as separate “races”, which is always a bit jarring to read in histories written before WWII.
If people are going to stipulate race as a category, and argue for the supremacy of the glorious white race (even if they dodge by calling it “culture”), it should be noted exactly who has been in the driver’s seat for this species’ headlong rush to self-annihilation (which will also claim most of the innocent bystanders trying to get by on the planet).
And then there are the laughably sorry specimens who self-identify most loudly as neo-nazis, skinheads, and Proud Boys.
Considering what Atwater advised, it’s obvious the GOP has not just been running on but living off race for some time. And it shows in their makeup; they are essentially the “white man party” and there’s a reason for that. There’s a reason all the Nazis and white supremacists are republicans, and why they not just approve of Trump, but in some cases worship him. Looking at the GOP’s policy of “tax cuts” and insistence that democratic programs pay for themselves, and listening to ways they talk about these programs, they are yelling “nigger!” almost every time they open their mouths on policy without actually saying it. They have not only learned and applied Atwater’s tactics; they have perfected them.
Trump on the other hand, lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp the nuances of the political game, as well as the emotional capability to play it, blows it up for them, removing their veil and putting racism out front, swapping the dog whistle for the megaphone. The only reason the paladins of the GOP don’t mind as much because it is working for them, and given the demographic changes already apace, they need every white vote they can get to be competitive. I recall when, in the wake of Romney’s loss in 2012, Priebus as RNC head had an “autopsy” done that recommended changes the GOP would need to make, some of which essentially would go against what being a “white party” really is about. This was rejected by Rush and his ilk, who said the answer is we need to work on finding all those “hidden white voters” and somehow motivating them to vote for us. Which explains Trump kicking off his campaign with a nakedly racist appeal. It explains DeSantis “monkey this up” comment, it explains a lot of other comments expressing blatant racism by republican politicians, because thanks to Trump, they see that today, contrary to what Atwater said way back then, today you actually can essentially say “nigger” and not only get away with it, but be rewarded politically for it.
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said.
White supremacist is quite different from western civilization, you ridiculously stupid racist.
. . . also arrogant and stupid, though.
. . . remained widely approved, and not widely condemned for its immorality, into the 70s is sobering. And chilling.
America’s three original sins: genocide, slavery and religious intolerance were all linked to the oldest of America’s “identity politics”, i.e. white supremacy. The unexamined assumption that the white “race” was superior to all others was, in large part due to the outright oppression and deprivation of opportunities denied to non-whites for education, individual autonomy and economic advancement by the whites who ruled the country. And so it became, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments started the slow, halting process of rectifying this terrible situation.
But there is little doubt that 5.64% of the 198 million non-Hispanic white population completely agrees with the racist alt-right, according to a respected study. These hard core white supremacists are the core of the Trump constituency, of course. However, a significantly larger group undoubtedly agrees with some elements of white supremacist ideology. The problem is that it is less openly visible. In keeping with Atwater’s formulation, which our host quoted above, the GOP’s focus on degrading the social safety net, voter suppression and denying employment opportunities for minorities are all targeted forms of racism so the de facto figure of white supremacists ends up being at least 30% of the population.
And that’s also the main reason that the GOP, as currently constituted must destroyed or else we, as a nation, will continue sliding steadily backwards
I agree. How do you propose to destroy it?
When I’m feeling optimistic, I think that activist voters, like in places such as GA, FL and TX will work hard to overturn voter suppression.
There’s also the demographic thing. Finally, it is pretty clear, at this point, that the GOP has no agenda other than destroying the federal government (except for the national security parts, which they want to run badly) and the majority of Americans are just not for that.
So either the GOP changes or they go extinct.
If it were not the structural problems with the electoral system (state control of federal elections and the Electoral College), the national GOP would already be extinct.
. . . by definition. Ditto for “White Nationalism”. See “white” right there in their names, ferchrissakes! What could possibly be more racist than a claim that white people are “supreme” on the basis of whiteness alone.
Neither has any purpose absent racism. Neither can exist absent racism. Racism is the prerequisite, the necessary condition, for both. Both are — inherently! — racism.
Hard to imagine anything more absurd/dishonest than the attempts by racists like King to pretend they’re not racist, but rather “just” “White Supremacist”/”White Nationalist” — as if, yeah, racism’s bad, but those are fine! They’re the same fucking thing!
(And, yes, this does mean Our Greatest President was racist. Like the majority of his contemporaries, including, I have little doubt, many/most slaves and African-American “freemen”.)
I’m confused a bit by your last parenthetical. Are you saying many/most slaves and “freemen” were racist too?
. . . of racial oppression can in some sense be “racist” via accepting and internalizing the message of their own inferiority that had been beaten into them, which is what I’m saying I suspect (and that’s all this is) many probably had. That’s certainly a form of discriminating (literally) on the basis of race. Or can only the oppressors be “racist”, by definition? Even if the oppressed internalize the message of the inferiority of their race?
Traumatized, certainly, but no, being made to FEEL worthless doesn’t make them racist (believing whites to be superior).
. . . from believing in their own inferiority, accepting it as true. I suspect some did. In fact, find it hard to believe it could have been otherwise. The question is whether such discrimination by race is in some sense (though not the common sense in which it’s usually used/understood) “racist”.
If Charlie Rangel could say of George W Bush that watching him “shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all” — what can we say of Donald Trump but the same thing x 1000 ?
Well, I guess because you were unfortunate enough to be in the hands of people who believed school is for indoctrinating kids and who held those disgusting beliefs.
By the way, thank you, Booman, for that great Lincoln quote. Far too many people think he started the Civil War because he wanted to free the slaves and have never read his speech where he explained his only goal was to preserve the Union. He said that if it would end the war and keep the Union intact he would free all slaves, or no slaves, or free some and keep the others enslaved. I think it is important for us to remember that he sincerely believed that white men were superior to black (or brown) men but still accepted that people of color are fully human. Oh, and he didn’t start the Civil War.