The Right Wing’s Toxic History of Identity Politics

After the events in Charlottesville, many people pondered how we ended up up in our current political climate; where Neo-Nazis, and white nationalists feel comfortable enough to form public rallies that end in tragedy. Out of all the poorly constructed excuses that came from the online intelligentsia, the worst was the following; that political correctness was to blame for our current rise in far right extremism. This line came from the realm of political thought that is obsessed with blaming political correctness and identity politics for everything that is wrong with the world. They themselves use many of the same tactics as their ‘adversaries’, and are just as obsessed with signifying their identity politics as even the most fervent social justice warrior. The obsession with identity politics stems from the same roots for both sides; it allows them to disengage from having to support any real policy solution, or attempt to get a better understanding of the extremely complicated problems our world currently faces with no easy solutions. Instead, their battlefield is online where the argument is who is more triggered. For a large part of the population, modern politics is the complete disengagement from actual political activity, and has been replaced by an array of cultural signifiers to show where one stands.

The half baked idea that identity politics is to blame for the rise in far right extremism is not completely wrong though. Identity politics plays a role, but its the toxic brand of identity politics used by the right wing. Long before political correctness became the ‘downfall of our civilization’, right wing politicians had used white identity politics as an effective tool to control their base; using it to encourage alienation and fear along racial lines, crushing any hope of solidarity that would see the destruction of their base. It was in the post World War 2 era that the right wing started to use identity politics as a replacement for any sort of policy that would benefit their base. Coded racism and xenophobia had always been useful tools to fill in the policy gap of right wing politicians. So why is it a shock that in 2017, white identity politics has blossomed into full blown white nationalism and a growing admiration for fascism?

The modern brand of right wing identity politics has its origins in in the 1960’s. The first person to use it effectively on the national scale was Barry Goldwater, the notorious Republican presidential nominee in 1964. The roots of the Southern Strategy can be traced back to Goldwater’s campaign. The Southern Strategy was the plan to bring white southern voters into the Republican party. The southern states had been dominated by the Democrats until this point, but as the party became more progressive by supporting the civil rights movement, the Republicans saw a chance to gain white southerners’ support by opposing civil rights.

Barry Goldwater at the time of the ‘64 election was considered one of the most right wing candidates the Republicans had ever run for President. His platform included reducing the size of government, major cuts to social services, and a stated willingness to use nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War. The most favorable part of his platform though, and the one that would have a lasting impact on Republican politics, was his resistance to the civil rights movement. Even though he had supported civil rights legislation in the past as Senator of Arizona, he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The legislation made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, religion, sex, or nationality. It also ended segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. His opposition to civil rights would earn him the support of the KKK, even though Goldwater was not ‘directly’ connected (Remind you of anyone?).

Goldwater would loose the ‘64 election in a landslide to the incumbent Jonson. He won 5 deep south states though (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina), the first Republican presidential nominee to do so since Reconstruction after the Civil War. The new found support was undoubtedly due to Goldwater’s stance on civil rights and states rights, which aligned with those of southern whites. While the general election was a complete disaster for the Republicans, it was also the birth of a new white identity politics that would turn the South into the Republican base it is today.

The torch of the Southern Strategy was picked up by Richard Nixon in the next election of ‘68. While Goldwater was considered too extreme by the majority of the country, Nixon used white identity politics in a more inconspicuous way. White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman had noted that Nixon “emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to.” This was the tactic of coded racism that drove white identity politics in the modern era.

Nixon’s campaign was centered around “Law and Order.” The principle was that he would be tougher on crime, and cracking down on it would reduce the crime rate. The dog whistle message of the Law and Order platform contained more than just the promise to reduce crime. The connotation to white voters was that crime was a product of the black community, and Nixon’s administration would finally confront it with a more appropriate heavy handed response. It also contained the message that Nixon would be harder on the protests and riots that accompanied the Civil Rights movement. A necessary part of gaining the attention the movement needed, a lot of white Americans viewed the protests as an unjustified show of force. To the people who were avidly opposed to the civil rights movement and its tactics, Nixon’s promise of a crack down was warmly welcomed. To them, there was no doubt at who “Law and Order” was going to be aimed at.

Nixon also ran on the support of states’ rights, the idea that the federal government should not be able to dictate the laws of the state governments. In the lead up to the Civil War, this was the main argument used to keep the institution of slavery alive in the South. 100 years later, the term was used against the desegregation being forced upon the South. While the Civil Rights Act of ’64 put desegregation into motion, Nixon’s support of states’ rights let southern whites know that he was a good ol’ boy who supported their cause, even if it was futile to fight against.

Nixon would win the ’68 election in a resolute victory. The only deep southern states he would loose were to the third party candidate George Wallace, who ran an even further right campaign than Nixon, who used white identity politics in a less covert form. Nixon would also win the ’72 election in a landslide. This cemented the Southern Strategy as a useful tactic for the Republicans, and made white identity politics inseparable from their platform. The success of Nixon’s campaigns would be emulated by the party into contemporary times.

“She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.”

The quote is from Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign. Reagan was the next Republican who would use white identity politics to successfully gain election into the White House (He failed in his ’76 bid, succeeding in ’80 and ‘84). Reagan had come out in support of the Goldwater campaign in ’64. He had also learned from Nixon’s tactics of using coded racism to appeal to white voters. By the time he was running for President though, the civil rights movement had won its victories and had been accepted by the majority of the country. Reagan had to change his target, and give white voters a new enemy to fear. The above statement is about the “Welfare Queen” a contrived character by Reagan to show the nefarious use of social security. While he never mentioned the race of the welfare huckster, it was obviously implied in the mind of white voters.

Reagan also appealed to white identity politics in a less coded form with his attacks on affirmative action. His opposition to affirmative action was based on America’s status as a meritocracy, that hard work is rewarded and positions always go to the most suitable person (This part of American exceptionalism has always been the most toxic, and extravagantly fabricated). This appealed to white voters on the issue of race in a much more direct way, while masking it as concern for the foundation of American society.

Regan used the same strategies that Goldwater, and Nixon had laid the foundation for, but he needed to update the tactics. He created a panic in white voters that black Americans were abusing the system, and getting an unfair leg up. The tactic was so useful that it is still a staple of white identity politics’ talking points. The coded racism of attacks on welfare and affirmative action were much more palatable to the wider white voting base; it was not seen as an attack directly on race, but as a defense of the American system.

In the 2000’s white identity politics shifted its focus again. While the same old cues remained, a completely new demographic was found to be feared and hated outside of America’s border. In the aftermath of 9/11, Islam became the new major threat to Americans. The shock wave caused by the terror attacks led the majority of the American public into supporting the invasion of Afghanistan (A war that continues to this day, and just received approval of a its second troop surge) and the intervention in Iraq to unseat Saddam Hussein. The original goal of the invasions was to stabilize the Middle East, and stop the growing power of Islamic extremists in the region (Which America plays its own role in the origin story of). 16 years since 9/11 and currently the Middle East has three on going civil wars, Islamic extremism is more prevalent than ever, a migrant crisis, and no sign or plan for peace in the future at all. All the while at home in America, Muslims continue to be vilified simply for sharing the religion of extremists.

Obama’s 2008 run to the presidency is a perfect example of the toxicity of white identity politics being used. While Obama was gaining national momentum that his adversaries started to feel, he began getting attacked from all sides. Of course they could not openly attack him just for being black. The issue they found to focus on with Obama was his middle name, Hussien. He was charged with being a secret Muslim, something that parts of the right wing would hold onto for the entirety of his presidency. Questions about if he was even a American citizen began to circulate, and he had to provide his birth certificate just to prove he was American. Of course, this tactic was not just used by Republicans, but also by Hillary Clinton who was facing Obama for the Democratic nomination. Some Clinton supporters also spread the idea that Obama was not an American citizen. Clinton’s staff circulated to the media a picture of Obama in traditional African wear, which included a head wrapping, as an attempt to reinforce the Muslim stereotype. At that point it was too late for Clinton though, and the tactics would also prove futile in the general election that year as Obama went on to the Presidency. The campaign tactics that year show a new type of toxicity though, much less coded and fully embracing Islamophobia.

This brings us all the way back to Donald Trump. In his accession to the presidency he has used the same strategy as Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan, but of course he did so without the coded racism and instead opted for vulgar pandering to white identity politics. He fed off Islamophobia with his promise to ban all Muslims from entering the US. He fed off xenophobia with his promise of a border wall and mass deportations. As ridiculous as his promises were, they played well with the white voters who had been trained to respond to white identity politics. Trump managed to hijack the Republican party by using their own tactics; but instead of using the coded racism the party had used previously, he gave them an even more pure form of white identity politics that his base reveled in the grotesqueness of.

So how did we end up with the spike in acceptance of far right ideology?

The white identity politics used by media to create massive amounts of profit, and politicians to create bases of mindless voters, is not that far removed from the ideology of the far-right. The shift to the extreme for many was compounded by the complete replacement of any beneficial policy with that of identity politics. Many people realized that the political system was failing; both political parties failed to produce actual policy solutions to the world’s real problems. In the vacuum created by the failing system, some looked to fill it with the solutions promoted by the more extreme ideologies. For example, white American voters have for a long time been told to fear the rise of Islamic extremism, so of course a growing chunk of the population looks at these issues as the main ones to be solved. Thus, the white identity politics that many voters had already been indoctrinated to respond to, easily funneled people into believing in a more extreme version of right wing politics that was offering ‘new solutions’.

The reality is that the toxicity of white identity politics has been an integral part of the American system for a long time now. The fact that it has bubbled over into extremism should surprise no one, considering the American right has always flirted with fascism. While the acceptance of far-right ideology has been growing though, it is still far from being a majorly accepted political belief. It is part of the right wing coalition who put Trump in power, and it has gained prominence by hitching itself to the movement. If we want to quell its growing power, we need to reverse the potency of identity politics to begin with. We need to turn the political discourse away from cultural signifiers and towards policy solutions that improve peoples lives. While it will be impossible to disentangle everyone from far-right ideologies, it is possible to dismantle the power base that Trump and the far-right have elevated themselves with. While we can not erase hateful ideologies, we can shift political discourse in a direction that minimizes the effectiveness of recruitment into these ideologies, and avoids normalizing them as a political movement. Realizing that white identity politics has played a role in the growth of the far-right, is a part of that shift.