Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America E8: Hate Thy Neighbor - Othering Democracy to Death

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

What if the very fabric of American democracy is under threat from within? In this episode of After America, we explore the insidious power of othering and its devastating effects on our nation's democratic principles. We start by highlighting the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation following the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, moving through the nativist rhetoric of the Tea Party and Donald Trump. Discover how these harmful narratives have pitted Americans against each other, creating an "us versus them" mentality that marginalizes vulnerable communities and destabilizes democratic values.

We then turn to the deep-seated issue of racial othering in the United States, revealing how dog-whistle politics have been employed to perpetuate racism under the guise of patriotism. From the early treatment of Native Americans and the institution of slavery to the strategic use of racial resentment against the New Deal coalition, McCarthyism, and the post-9/11 war on terror, we paint a vivid picture of how fear and suspicion have been weaponized to erode civil liberties and divide society. This historical context sets the stage for understanding the current political landscape, where racial and political divisions are being deepened to dangerous effect.

As the 2024 election looms, we delve into the authoritarian undertones of Trump's rhetoric and actions. We scrutinize his desperate attempts to retain power, even as he faces potential legal and financial repercussions. From authoritarian measures to outright declarations of dictatorial ambitions, Trump's alarming statements are a clarion call for anyone concerned about the future of American democracy.

Guests: Drs. Ian Haney Lopez, Jennifer Hochschild, Ari Shaw, Carol Graham, Sheri Berman, & Peter Fritzsche

Credits:
Infados - Kevin MacLeod
Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay
9/11 Address to the Nation: Courtesy of the George W. Bush Library
Tommy Tuberville Immigration Speech: Courtesy of CSPAN
Bush Speech on Marriage Amendment: Courtesy of CSPAN

Counterpoint Podcast

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

Hey folks, before we get into this next episode of After America, I want to express some gratitude to all of you taking the time to listen to this series, to comment and to send me messages. The response to this series has been overwhelming, way beyond what I expected, and it's been humbling. So thank you for listening, for taking this series seriously and for voting this November. For taking this series seriously and for voting this November. You've already done enough, but I'd like to ask that you take one more tiny step. If you like this series, share it, spread the word with your friends, your family, co-workers, people you agree with, people you disagree with. Every little bit helps to share the message, to get out the vote to save democracy, thank you. The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges on June 26, 2015, ruling that same-sex couples have a legal right to marry overshadowed a coordinated and pernicious movement that was growing on the right, intended to flip a script to alter the reality of straight-dominated society, making queer people the oppressors, the victimizers. Three months before the Obergefell decision, indiana Governor Mike Pence then a relative unknown in American politics signed into law Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to permit discrimination against LGBTQ plus individuals, allowing people and businesses to assert religious beliefs as a defense in private lawsuits, which raised concerns about its potential use to deny services to LGBTQ plus people. The following year, north Carolina Governor Pat McRory signed into law House Bill 2, or HB2, commonly known as the Bathroom Bill, requiring individuals to use public restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to the sex listed on their birth certificates, effectively barring transgender people from using facilities that match their gender identity. In both states, the fallout to the laws was swift. Their gender identity. In both states, the fallout to the laws was swift, severe and damaging. Major corporations, civil rights groups, large swaths of the population and even some state governments condemned the law, leading to boycotts and resulting in significant economic losses. Each state implemented what they called fixes to the laws, but the cat was out of the bag. Obergefell might have signaled significant progress made on queer rights and equality in the United States, but it was running parallel to an old favorite tactic of the right demonizing an other, crafting an us versus them narrative, and how far they would go wouldn't become apparent for a couple more years. This narrative us versus them is a crucial ingredient to dismantling democracy, and so authoritarians lean into it, creating division and fear, weakening resistance, often demonizing political opponents and marginalized groups to consolidate power and justify the use of undemocratic measures. It's particularly insidious because it turns the populace into participants pawns that assist in their own demise. Welcome to After America. I'm your host, sean C Fettig. Find, follow and like Deep Dive with Sean C Fettig on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube, and check back every Sunday through September for new episodes of After America as we examine the precarious state of American democracy, how we got here and where we might be headed. The clock is ticking. Democracy's at a crossroads and the time to act is now.

Shawn:

In 2013, gallup found that 70% of Americans thought that race relations in the United States were very or somewhat good. Two years later, in 2015, that perception had fallen off a cliff, with only 47% believing that race relations were very or somewhat good, and it's only fallen more since. In 2014, 35% of Americans were dissatisfied with the level of immigration into the United States, wanting it decreased. By 2016, that number had risen to 43%. Lgbtq+ writes. Drilling into the data, however, shows some interesting fluctuations. On the issue of same-sex marriage, there was a sudden, albeit short, drop in acceptance in June of 2015, the same month that Obergefell was decided, and then again between May of 2018 and May of 2019, when then-President Trump made anti-LGBTQ plus legislation and rhetoric a priority. The one area where we've seen the reverse trend is on gender identity. Here, acceptance has dropped from 2021 through today on all related issues bathroom use, military service, sports and whether it's morally acceptable to change one's sex or gender expression.

Shawn:

Some fluctuation of opinion is normal, dependent on changing situations and events, but something else has been going on that helps to explain why we've seen such significant shifts in public opinion, sometimes even changing the direction of support altogether from positive to negative, in such a short period of time and related to very specific groups. The shifts occurred in tandem with a disturbance in American politics correlating with the rise of the Tea Party and its inflammatory and nativist framing of issues related to marginalized groups, and the arrival of Donald Trump, injecting violent and demonizing rhetoric about specific groups of people into the mainstream of Republican discourse, which has subsequently bled into the mainstream of American discourse, positioning dominant American society white, straight, christian and male as being the last bulwark defending against the rise of an evil empire populated with immigrants, folks of color, particularly black folks and queer people. This is a well-honed, well-worn trick of the authoritarian trade to create an enemy out of whole cloth that focuses the frustration, hate and rage of a favored group in a very specific way to dehumanize and delegitimize the lives and potential power of less favored groups. In this episode of After America, we're going to examine this phenomenon of othering in American politics how it's evolved, the threat it poses to democracy, how and why populist authoritarian figures appeal to hate and anger against outgroups, how this can justify violence, and what this might look like in the United States if it continues unchecked.

Shawn:

The concept of othering involves defining one group in opposition to another and it's kind of been around forever. It's been used to justify wars, colonization, slavery, all kinds of forms of oppression. It has been weaponized both overtly and covertly. Overtly, people openly differentiate, categorize and classify people based on something different about them Skin color, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity. You get the point. They might use explicitly denigrating language to identify people and groups different from them. Covertly, people and groups can be othered by framing language, coding language to sand the edges, making racism language, coding language to sand to the edges, making racism, homophobia, misogyny, et cetera more acceptable to the masses. This is Dr Ian Haney-Lopez, professor of law at the University of California, berkeley, and author of numerous books about race and class in our American politics, including Dog Whistle Politics and Merge Left, explaining how this works.

Dr. Lopez:

Whistle Politics and Merge Left explaining how this works. The idea of the code or the function of the code is no longer to communicate a clearly understood message to one's intended audience, but instead the function of the code is to trigger in people deeply rooted but unconscious biases that almost all of us have Liberal, conservative, progressive. It doesn't really matter how you conceptualize yourself. Just think for a moment or just observe for a moment the sort of images that come to mind when I say criminal, illegal aliens, american heartland gangbangers, patriots, hardworking Americans, terrorists. Like liberal or conservative, we've all absorbed by osmosis these stereotypes. Now, the more progressive or liberal you are, the more attuned you are to recognizing that those stereotypes are there and to you know, you can feel them surface. But you can also say to yourself consciously that's not who I am, that's not what I believe. I'm going to repudiate that. But what's happening with dog whistle politics is that politicians know that if they use this sort of language, they're going to trigger these racist beliefs in people who do not believe that they're racist. And this allows the politicians to turn around and to say to their base you know, just because you want to secure the borders against caravans of invaders, that doesn't mean you're a racist. It means you're a patriot, you're trying to take care of the country Just because you want to crack down on crime. That doesn't make you a racist. That makes you somebody trying to take care of innocent victims Just because you want to pass a law that says everybody has to speak English. That's not racism. That's trying to protect America's culture and tradition.

Dr. Lopez:

This is a very, very important innovation, a very, very important innovation. In other words, what we see now is a dog whistle politics in which the code is designed to trigger racism and yet hide the racism from the base itself. If that's how dog whistling is working, then notice what's going to happen with people of color, with communities of color. Those of us who've written and studied and think about dog whistle politics can see clearly that, as originally designed, the idea was that it would trigger racist stereotypes that celebrated whites and denigrated non-whites.

Dr. Lopez:

But again, in the language it uses, on its surface, it's not a story about race. It's a story about good people and bad people, people who are hardworking versus people who are lazy, people who are law-abiding versus people who are lawbreakers, and it's on those terms that many people in communities of color hear this message and ask themselves am I one of the good ones or the bad ones? Am I law-abiding or a lawbreaker? Am I hardworking or am I lazy? And so, even within communities of color, people can adopt this right-wing frame that says our country is composed of people who are makers and people who are takers. They can adopt that frame and not understand the racial undertones of the story that they're embracing, the racial undertones of the story that they're embracing.

Shawn:

In the context of American history, othering has played a central role in our origin story. The early settlers often justified their expansion and the brutal treatment of Native Americans by portraying them as savages who needed to be subdued and civilized. This narrative not only dehumanized Native Americans, but also unified European settlers under a common identity as civilized Christians. This rhetoric employed to describe a land manifestly created for the settlers that need only be cleared of the wild natives in order to be fully realized the doctrine of manifest destiny natives in order to be fully realized. The doctrine of manifest destiny laid the groundwork for the systemic displacement and genocide of indigenous peoples. Dr Lopez describes this.

Dr. Lopez:

What racism said or what race said is different peoples of the world have different destinies because they have different capacities. There are some races, european, that have the capacity to reason, to produce a civilization, to produce greatness in art and literature, to exercise self-restraint. Those races are destined for self-rule. They deserve liberty, they deserve dignity, they deserve government that responds to the interests of the population. And then there are these other races, and they may lack reason, they may be incapable of education, they have no capacity for literature or for art, they are unable to control their basic instincts and therefore they are not fit for self-government. They are not fit to be treated as equals. They instead need to be managed like farm animals or they may be so dangerous that they're more akin to wolves and bears and need to be driven back into the wilderness. Now notice and here's what's really important about this story about race. First, again, you can see how it's justifying slavery and Native American dispossession. But also notice this this is a story of race as race being centrally about character and temperament and behavior.

Shawn:

The institution of slavery is another example of othering. In early American society, african slaves were not only considered property but were dehumanized through a complex system of racial othering that justified their subjugation. This was evident in the pseudoscientific theories of racial inferiority that proliferated during the 19th century, which were used to rationalize and perpetuate slavery and later segregation. Even after the abolition of slavery, othering continued to manifest in the form of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchisement of African Americans. This was reinforced by the Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v Ferguson establishing the legality of the separate but equal doctrine. Politics in the United States, particularly in the South, revolved around ensuring the dominance of white folks and the subjugation of black folks. George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, embodied the Southern embrace of this flavor of othering, regularly declaring segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

Wallace:

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth. I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny.

Shawn:

And I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever Wallace's speeches and he gave a lot of them around the country framed the fight for civil rights as an existential threat to the Southern way of life, appealing to deep-seated fears and prejudices to maintain the status quo of racial hierarchy. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and the 1960s challenged this, but the legacy of racial othering persists to this day. In fact, as mentioned at the top of this episode, it remains a favorite tool employed by the Republican Party today to sow distrust and grievance and grab power. Dr Lopez describes what this has looked like and does look like in American politics.

Dr. Lopez:

What's the impetus behind dog whistle politics? Initially, politicians were attracted to it as a way of winning elections. They could use this coded language to appeal to racially fearful whites, whites made anxious by the successes of the civil rights movement, by the demands for integration. So it was little more than a powerful way to win elections. And this, I think, really describes how Richard Nixon used dog whistle politics in 1968 and then to win in a landslide in 1972. But dog whistle politics had another impetus behind it. What dog whistling was doing was breaking apart the New Deal coalition, the coalition of voters who essentially, from the 1940s through the 1970s, supported a New Deal government or a great society government, but a social welfare style government that believed in regulated capitalism, that regulated the marketplace, that supported labor unions, that transferred great wealth, taxed it and then transferred it widely, that built routes of upward mobility. The New Deal Great Society Coalition was comprised of African-Americans, northeastern liberals and the white working class. Dog whistle politics was designed to pull whites out of that coalition and that made dog whistle politics attractive not just to politicians seeking to win but to reactionary billionaires, to dark money elites who wanted to kneecap the New Deal, who were at war with the New Deal, and what I mean by that is, although most of corporate America came to understand that the New Deal consensus was indeed good for American business, there remained, in the 40s, the 50s and the 60s, these reactionary factions the Koch brothers, for example, and their father who really saw the New Deal as a threat to the rich and who believed instead in an economic royalism in which the appropriate role of government was to provide for the common defense and also to ensure the conditions under which people could compete in the marketplace under a winner-take-all system, and that the very rich were supposedly to be the main engines of social progress. That's all a little abstract. Let me put it a little more cynically there were a set of very rich people who didn't like a government that regulated corporations, who didn't like a government that taxed the very wealthy and redistributed that wealth outward and downward, who didn't like a government that supported unions, and they wanted to destroy public support for that style of New Deal, great Society welfare, insofar as they could. Could they destroy that support by going to the American public and saying we believe in economic royalism and you should too? No, that argument had failed.

Dr. Lopez:

With the Great Depression, dog whistle politics gave them a new language. It gave them the language of racial resentment. It allowed these reactionary dark money elites to fund politicians promoting a rhetoric of racial division, racial fear. That was also connected to an anti-New Deal, anti-government message, and the message went something like this you should fear these dangerous criminals, but you should hate liberal government, which gives more rights to criminals and refuses to protect victims. More rights to criminals and refuses to protect victims. You should resent welfare queens who are ripping off the system, but you should hate liberal government because it's taking dollars in the form of taxes from hardworking Americans and giving it to these undeserving people.

Shawn:

Othering in American politics isn't limited to race, though. It's not just evolved but expanded, reflecting changing social and political landscapes and swallowing more and more groups over time.

McCarthy:

One communist on the faculty of one university is one communist too many. One communist among the American advisers at Yalta was one communist Tumani. And even if there were only one communist in the State Department, even if there were only one communist in the State Department, even if there were only one communist in the State Department, there could still be one communist too many.

Shawn:

During the Cold War, anti-communism became a powerful tool of othering. The McCarthy era, spanning the late 1940s through the 1950s, was marked by intense anti-communist sentiment and a pervasive culture of fear and suspicion in the United States. Named after Senator Joseph McCarthy, this period saw the concept of othering used extensively to marginalize and persecute individuals perceived as existential threats to American values and the American way of life. Threats to American values and the American way of life, specifically targeting communists, socialists and LGBTQ plus people. Capitalizing on fears of communist influence and espionage during the early years of the Cold War, senator McCarthy alleged that numerous communists and Soviet spies had infiltrated the State Department and other institutions. This led to a series of investigations and hearings, most famously by the House Un-American Activities Committee. The accused, regardless of guilt and often without any concrete evidence of disloyalty, were often blacklisted, losing their jobs and reputations.

Shawn:

Simultaneously, the McCarthy era also saw the rise of the Lavender Scare, which targeted LGBTQ plus individuals within the government and other sectors. The argument was that LGBTQ plus people were morally weak and therefore susceptible to blackmail by communist agents. This led to the dismissal and forced resignation of thousands of federal employees based on their sexual orientation. Forced resignation of thousands of federal employees based on their sexual orientation. Subsequently, president Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 in 1953, officially barring LGBTQ plus individuals from federal employment and codifying into American law systemic discrimination and ruining the lives of countless people.

Shawn:

The McCarthy era's use of othering fostered a culture of paranoia and conformity, discouraging dissent and promoting social homogeneity. The vilification of communists and LGBTQ plus individuals not only violated civil liberties, but also highlighted the dangers of using fear and suspicion to marginalize perceived others within society and, in a weird way, it also painted a roadmap for undemocratic bad actors that might want to create and exploit divisions in society to weaken the social contract and generate instability. In more recent decades, othering has taken on new forms, and particularly since the turn of the century.

Bush:

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

Shawn:

The war on terror has often framed Muslims and people from the Middle East as the other, leading to increased discrimination and xenophobia. After the 9-11 attacks, before much evidence had been gathered or facts were known, president George W Bush declared either you are with us or you're with the terrorists, and then falsely, it would turn out laid blame on Iraq. This framing created a climate where dissent was equated with disloyalty, and entire communities were viewed with suspicion and hostility. And so policies like the Patriot Act, increasing surveillance and the establishment of Guantanamo Bay were all justified under the guise of protecting against an alien threat and were embraced by almost all political leaders and within the American electorate. Across all political stripes.

Shawn:

Anti-muslim sentiment spiked dramatically, with FBI data showing that anti-Muslim hate crime incidents surged from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001. In 2015, after Trump had announced his candidacy for president, he regularly stoked anti-Muslim sentiment, suggesting the creation of a database to track Muslims in the United States and calling for, in his words, a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on. In that year, 2015, anti-muslim hate crimes surged again, increasing by 67% from the previous year. Anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States has also intensified since the early 2000s. In addition to targeting people from Muslim-majority countries, political rhetoric and policies have focused on people from Latin America and, more recently, folks from Africa and China. Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama gave a speech on the Senate floor recently which shows the softer side of this type of rhetoric.

Speaker 4:

We have no idea who these people are, but here's what we do know about the people who have invaded our country 25,000 Chinese nationals have entered our country since October, the 1st 2023. 184,000 Haitians have entered under Joe Biden's mass parole program, along with 101,000 Venezuelans, 91,000 from Cuba, 75,000 Nicaraguans, and this doesn't count the 76,000 Afghans who came here after Joe Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. So why aren't Joe Biden and the globalist Democrats allowing this to happen? Why is this going on? It is simply because Democrats care more about keeping power than they do about safety and protecting the American taxpayer and American citizens. A New York congresswoman confirmed this. She says she welcomes illegal immigration because it helps with redistricting. The president and his progressive left Democrat Party know that the more people that they can get in this country, the longer they stay in power by increasing the population in the blue districts. Simple fact.

Shawn:

Already armed with the Patriot Act, which expanded the government's ability to surveil and spy on well pretty much anyone, providing the government a secret tool that was largely unaccountable. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 further institutionalized a security-focused approach to immigration. Over time, the Republican Party platform evolved on the issue of immigration, moving away from immigration as being important to the economic success of the United States and toward stricter border controls and enforcement measures. The party's platform took a strikingly restrictive turn in the 2010s, coinciding with the rise of the Tea Party movement, which emphasized strong opposition to illegal immigration. Tea Party movement, which emphasized strong opposition to illegal immigration.

Shawn:

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump further shifted the party's stance by making immigration a central issue, focusing not just on illegal immigration but also legal immigration. His rhetoric, such as calling for a wall along the US-Mexico border and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists, signified a complete restructuring of the Republican approach to the issue, employing the othering framework to immigration. Dr Jennifer Hochschild, professor of government and African and African-American studies at Harvard University and author of numerous books, including Creating a New Racial Order how Immigration, multiracialism, genomics and the Young Can Remake Race in America, discusses this.

Dr. Hochschild:

There is one part of those facts, of those claims, that I think is correct and is terribly salient, which is it's very difficult on the border itself and you know by maybe 100 miles you can't see my fingers, but I'm making kind of a fat line I mean the actual process of coming into the United States without documentation, making claims perhaps for asylum or refugee, or trying very hard to avoid being found. I mean there are border communities and again border is a pretty fat line, it's probably 100 miles into the southern border which are really a mess, and that's true. And I think it's also true that you know what we used to call gateway cities I don't think anybody uses that term anymore, but you know, new York, chicago, los Angeles, the individuals themselves don't stay in that circumstance for very long and over the course of a lifetime.

Dr. Hochschild:

you know, the first weeks or months kind of dissipate, but it's a continually repeating sense of sort of non-ending. More and more and more people coming, and we do our best to help them move on their way, but all of that means is that more people are coming. So the language of invasion is an offensive and problematic and mistaken language. But the sense of too many people making too many demands on systems that we can't cope well with is, I think, a real sense. Now again, it's all endogenous, right. One of the reasons we can't cope is because we, I think, a real sense. Now again, it's all endogenous, right. One of the reasons we can't cope is because we're not willing as a society to invest the resources.

Dr. Hochschild:

I mean, you know when Biden's and some members of Congress proposed legislation would have, I don't know, doubled, tripled, quadrupled, not only the number of border guards but also services, courts, administrative structures, I mean all the things that are needed to handle hundreds of thousands of people. And of course that piece of legislation didn't pass. So the politics are all entangled with it. There's a real problem on the border. The politics make the problem worse. The problem makes the politics worse. All of it is basically fixable but it lends itself to the language of, you know, hordes and invasions and out of control and no border. And you know there's just not a kernel of truth to that concern that it's hard to just dismiss it just dismiss it.

Shawn:

Trump's administration implemented several hardline policies, including the travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries, requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their applications are under consideration, the zero tolerance policy leading to family separations at the border. And efforts to end deferred action for childhood arrivals, which provides immigrants brought to the states illegally when they were children a path to legal status. This year, the Republican Party platform has been reshaped to fully reflect the othering of Trump's immigration policies. Proposals include sealing the entire southern border, conducting mass deportations, reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy and reintroducing the travel ban. These policies and the rhetoric surrounding them have contributed to a climate of fear and hostility toward immigrants that, as mentioned earlier, is reflected in public opinion polling, with support for immigration, even legal immigration, tanking in the past few years. Since the early 2000s. Anti-lgbtq plus sentiment in the United States has also been a significant aspect of Republican politics and othering tactics, wherein LGBTQ plus individuals are portrayed as fundamentally different and at odds with traditional American values.

Bush:

A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly yet to defend marriage. Our nation has no other choice. A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution, for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened.

Shawn:

In 2004, president George W Bush endorsed a federal amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman only, a move reflecting the strong influence of conservative and religious groups within the Republican Party. In response, many states obliged passing their own amendments to ban same-sex marriage. Despite this, rapid progress was made on the LGBTQ plus rights front. In 2011, don't Ask, don't Tell was repealed, and in 2015, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Republicans seethed and cast about for a new frame to walk these advancements back.

Shawn:

The Tea Party helped here on this issue too, emphasizing opposition to LGBTQ rights as part of their broader agenda to preserve traditional values and protect religious freedom. While the party remained hostile to the LGBTQ plus community generally, they coalesced around one issue, specifically gender expression targeting trans folks and drag queens, and it snowballed, according to the ACLU, in 2018,. According to the ACLU, in 2018, 42 anti-LGBTQ plus bills were introduced in state houses that year. In 2023, that number had grown to 510 for just that year. Dr Ari Shah, senior Fellow and the Director of International Programs at the Williams Institute, explains the scope of this this.

Dr. Shaw:

We're seeing really an unprecedented level of policy and legislative proposals. This year alone we've seen nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ bills proposed in state legislatures so far, which again I think is setting an annual record. We actually just produced a report looking in particular at the impact of these state legislative proposals on transgender youth. In many cases, it's trans youth who are bearing the brunt of these sort of legislative proposals and are who are most sort of central and in the eyes or in the targets of these conservative legislatures. We found that 93% of transgender youth age 13 to 17 in the US, which is approximately 280,000 youth, live in states where there have been proposed or enacted laws that restrict their access to health care, to sports, to school bathrooms and facilities or the use of gender-affirming pronouns. More than 200,000 transgender youth live in the 40 states that have passed laws or have pending bills that restrict access to gender affirming care. So this is really, you know, happening at a wide scale in the United States, not just sort of relegated to a few individual states or particular regions, but across the board.

Dr. Shaw:

We're seeing efforts in most states to pass laws that are infringing on the rights of LGBTQ people. As I mentioned, this is happening across a number of different issue areas or rights. Number of different issue areas or rights, whether it's banning gender affirming care and the ability of LGBTQ people to access life-saving health care that they need, whether it's banning participation in sports for trans youth, whether it's limiting their ability to access school bathrooms that align with their gender identity, banning school curriculum that in any way mentions or engages with LGBTQ issues and identities. It's really running the gamut. And again and I think this gets back to the question around sort of historical perspective and yes, we've you know kind of what's old is new again, unfortunately, but we're also seeing the sort of breadth and you know scale of attacks in terms of both issues and how widely across, sort of geographically across the country, we're seeing these bills proposed and enacted. That, I think, underscores just how sort of unique this is and how much more dangerous this is than any other point for queer people in US history.

Shawn:

Republican leaders often frame this legislation and these actions as necessary to protect religious freedoms and traditional values, perpetuating the othering of LGBTQ plus individuals. The rhetoric surrounding debate on these issues and the ways in which Republican politicians talk about queer people, demonizing and dehumanizing them, has a real-world effect. The FBI reports that from 2021 to 2022, hate crimes committed against people based on sexual orientation had increased by 13.8%, and hate crimes committed against people based on gender expression jumped 32.9%. So, okay, the people trafficking in this rhetoric and this behavior are assholes. It's cruel and it's divisive, but it's more than just that. There's a deliberate strategy here. There's a reason that authoritarians throughout history and today lean so heavily on crafting and perpetuating an us-versus-them narrative and environment. It's a fundamental tool in pursuit of dismantling democracy.

Shawn:

Authoritarians have long understood the power of othering. By appealing to hate and anger against outgroups, they consolidate power and rally support. It's part of a playbook that's been used by some of history's most notorious dictators, and it remains a strategy today. Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany is perhaps the most infamous example. He used anti-Semitic rhetoric to unite a fractured nation, scapegoating Jews for Germany's economic woes and loss in World War I. This created a sense of unity among the Aryan race while dehumanizing Jews and paving the way for the horrors of the Holocaust. Consider the propaganda efforts of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist. Through carefully crafted messages, he fostered a culture of hate and fear, depicting Jews as subhuman and a dire threat to German society. This dehumanization made the subsequent atrocities of the Holocaust possible, as ordinary people were complicit in or indifferent to the persecution and extermination of their neighbors.

Shawn:

More recently, leaders like Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey and Narendra Modi in India have employed similar tactics. By portraying outgroups, whether they be political opponents, ethnic minorities or foreign nationals, as threats, they rally, support and justify authoritarian measures. Putin's demonization of political opponents and minority groups, especially LGBTQ plus individuals, is an example. By framing them as agents of Western decadence and moral corruption, he bolsters his support among conservative and nationalist segments of his population. Similarly, Erdogan has used the failed coup attempt of 2016 to crack down on opposition, framing dissenters as terrorists and traitors. And here in the United States, Donald Trump's political rise is a textbook case of using othering to gain power. His campaigns were marked by divisive rhetoric, rhetoric that didn't just stoke fear and hatred. It also energized a base of supporters who felt threatened by demographic and cultural changes. Dr Hochschild describes this.

Dr. Hochschild:

We baby boomers are going to, as you politely put it, disappear from the scene over the next decade or two. Right, I mean, there we are. So that's, in part, that's just a demographic fact, and you can either like it or dislike it, and it can be politically salient or not, but it's a demographic fact. I think there are two not surprising reactions. One is, roughly speaking, I think, the majority view among most young adults say 40 or 30 and under, which is yeah, well, so that's, that's fine, that's cool, you know, more interesting food, more interesting music, more interesting people to talk to. You know, I don't know enough Spanish, but I'm going to learn it. You know it. Just there it is. That's the world I live in and that's, of course, you know, the view that I would like to encourage and promote. There is, I think, a backlash, there is a reaction against that view. In part it's generational, because older whites are increasingly taxed, in a literal but also metaphorical sense, to pay for, you know, schooling, housing, health care, everything else for younger, relatively more non-whites at least, as we've conventionally defined whiteness. And I'd rather save my money for my own kids, my own family, my own race, my own, you know. So the generational question of transition is not an easy one financially, politically, culturally, emotionally and so I think that's a huge part of the politics right now.

Dr. Hochschild:

Obama was young. Obama's most enthusiastic and most visible supporters were young. He and his family, you know, young children. They portrayed youth. They portrayed the next generation. They portrayed, they personified the future, and some people find that very scary and in some sense they are the future. I mean, again, latino birth rates are higher than white birth rates. You can stop immigration and it would still remain the case. And I think there's also there's a big generational story here that basically older, more predominantly whites, are required, expected, taxed, to pay for younger, increasingly predominantly non-whites. And you know, I'm not sure people necessarily articulate it in those terms, but but that's, that's the way the economy works.

Dr. Hochschild:

Yes, Not entirely, it's a little more complicated, but that's basically the other feature I think is a more kind of localistic not in a geographic genetic tests to prove that they are 100 percent Scandinavian, you know. I mean there's a kind of a identity politics that I think is actually pretty marginal. It's also very noisy, which takes the form, you know, the great replacement theory. Right, I don't think in terms of a substantial share of the population. I don't think very many Americans really think In terms of you know, jews will not replace us, latinos will not replace us, but it's a pretty dramatic storyline. Media love it. It's pretty powerful politically for those people for whom that's a motivating force.

Dr. Hochschild:

So, you know, transitions are hard. They're both exciting and frightening and, roughly speaking, the younger generation is more excited and the older generation is more frightened. And this also coincides with geography. Right, cities are much more multi-everything, multicultural, multiracial, multigenerational. Smaller towns, rural communities, are much more disproportionately white, or at least disproportionately some Latino communities living in the Southwest and so on, black communities in the American South, and those communities are struggling, they're losing population, they're losing jobs. So the association of multiracial, multicultural and big city and young and taking all my tax dollars, that's pretty complicated. Next, and not wrong, if you look where people live demographically, there's a lot of racial mixture in big cities and there's much, much less in smaller towns and rural communities. And those are the places getting poorer and poorer and older and older and Trumpier and Trumpier and older and older and Trumpier and Trumpier.

Shawn:

Consider the events leading up to and following the 2016 election. Trump's inflammatory speeches and social media posts created a climate where hate crimes increased and public discourse became more polarized and hostile. The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, where white supremacists marched openly and violently, is a chilling example of how this rhetoric can embolden extremists and lead to real-world violence, and this all contributed to the insurrection on January 6th. So here's how this works. First, othering creates a common enemy.

Shawn:

Authoritarians often need to unify their base or the broader population to maintain some type of control. By identifying and vilifying a particular group, whether it be based on race, religion, nationality, political beliefs or social status, authoritarians create a common enemy, which helps to divert attention from internal problems such as economic issues or government corruption, by channeling public frustration and anger toward the other. And since complex social, economic and political problems are often difficult to address and solve, authoritarians use othering as a way to simplify these issues and to divert attention, channeling blame onto an easily identifiable scapegoat. This makes it easier for the regime to offer simple, albeit false, solutions to these problems, thus maintaining the illusion of effective governance. This is Dr Carol Graham, senior fellow in the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute, professor at the University of Maryland and author of numerous books, including the Power of Hope how Well-Being Science Can Save Us from Despair. Explaining this in greater detail.

Dr. Graham:

I don't think it's just democracy that has failed them, although it certainly hasn't helped them much either. I also think the economic system has failed them, and so the capitalism as we know it has become very much a system that works for the rich and screws the poor. It's always been in a way. But other countries provide better social support, better public education and better health care, so people are much more likely to be able to participate in the system Right and succeed. Versus we have the winners and the losers, and I think Biden sort of comes too little, too late. I think Obama tried to address some of these things, but unfortunately we also have to deal with like racism and racial division in this country, and I think a lot of poor whites did not resonate with having a black president who was tremendously successful and, in their view, unfairly supported minorities over them. So I think it's the combination of things and I agree with you. I don't think low-income whites want authoritarianism per se. I think often, unfortunately, there's civic education of Trump's base. The civic education of Trump's base is so bad that they don't even know that they're supporting authoritarianism or what it is, honestly. But what I think they want is they want to be heard and, unfortunately, because Trump's found success in breeding kind of anger and division and blaming others a bit like Hitler did. Right, it's, it's it's not. It's not lost on a lot of people that there are big similarities there Because, again, when people are in despair, you know they want to blame somebody, or they want or they'll go for a quick fix. You know let's storm the Congress, whatever the hell that would do the Capitol. So they're easily manipulated.

Dr. Graham:

I don't think they have discussions about whether they are supporting democracy or authoritarianism, right? They buy the crap that the election was stolen and it's a witch hunt against Trump and now black judges are going after Trump. You know you can just hear whatever they're saying. I mean, I get snippets of it on right wing emails that I don't want that. Somehow, every time I'm unsubscribing it more of them, which is really frustrating from a personal perspective.

Dr. Graham:

But in a way it gives you insight into what people are thinking and hearing, and I don't listen regularly to Fox News. Maybe I should more, so I'd have a better sense of it. So I think they are being fed a narrative that is essentially promising them, without explicitly saying it, that if they vote for Trump, which is a vote for authoritarianism, and he said it explicitly himself. But if they vote for Trump, things will get better and America will be great again, which means America will go back to the way it used to be, like it was so great before, which we know was not necessarily the truth. But they're living or supporting a false narrative that's been very effective at making them feel listened to and heard and represented in a way that they don't see the current democratic system as doing no-transcript on deaf ears, because I think they're so far gone down this path of they have a savior and burn everything down. It doesn't matter, trump is going to solve all the problems in the end.

Shawn:

Once a group is labeled as the other, it becomes easier to justify repressive measures against them. These measures can include restrictions on civil liberties, surveillance, mass arrests, even violence. Authoritarians argue that these actions are necessary for the security and stability of the state, thereby legitimizing their grip on power. By othering certain groups, authoritarians often promote a sense of superiority among their supporters. This sense of superiority reinforces loyalty to the regime, as supporters feel that they're part of a privileged group that needs to be protected against the inferior or dangerous other. Othering then fractures solidarity among opposition groups by fostering division and mistrust. When different groups are pitted against each other, it becomes more difficult for them to unite against the authoritarian regime. This division weakens the opposition, making it easier for the regime to maintain control. Even in democratic societies, when these elements are introduced, they act as a destabilizing agent that can induce collapse.

Shawn:

Democracy relies on a sense of shared identity and common purpose among citizens. Democracies are built on principles such as equality, fairness, mutual respect and the protection of minority rights. Democracies embrace the rule of law and civil liberties for all and provide space for debate when we disagree. In a democracy, institutions such as the judiciary, the media and electoral bodies play a crucial role in checking power and ensuring fairness, which fosters trust in these institutions, a crucial component of democratic health. The practice and process of othering directly targets each of these components and attacks them relentlessly.

Shawn:

The threat to democracy is real and it's immediate. Othering not only divides society, but also weakens the institutions that protect our freedoms and rights, and, as we head into the 2024 election this November, othering remains a powerful force in American politics. The Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, has honed its craft, even codifying it into their party platform, demonizing immigrants, folks of color, queer folks, women, non-christians, people who own cats and political opponents Democrats, casting them as dangerous and un-American, framing disagreements as existential battles between good and evil. This is Dr Sherry Berman, professor of political science at Barnard College, leading expert on populism and authoritarianism and author of the book Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe, describing this.

Dr. Berman:

So the United States is the country that democratic scholars worry a lot about because it shouldn't quote unquote be doing as badly as it is, because it has again a long democratic history and an advanced industrial economy and yet seems to be again experiencing lots and lots of problems. So you know what are those problems? Well, they are many and it would take you know there have been already libraries of books written on this. I would say the two things that you know stand out about. The United States knows an incredibly polarized electorate and an even more polarized set of politicians, that is to say our parties. Or to put it another way, our parties have now been sorted into two opposing camps that have very little overlapping interests.

Dr. Berman:

It is very difficult to find ways to get Republicans and Democrats to agree on things. They see each other as enemies rather than as opponents. If you look at charts, for example, of political opinions between Democrats and Republicans, what's happened over the past generation or so is that the Republican electorate and the Republican Party has moved farther to the right and the Democratic electorate has moved to the left to the point where you know you have this kind of space in the middle where there's very little overlap. This is very different than you would have had a generation ago. So that's one thing that's going on.

Dr. Berman:

And in that kind of situation again, where citizens and politicians and parties see the other as an enemy rather than as an opponent, as someone or something that needs to be defeated because it is a threat, where there is very little opportunity or desire for compromise, that is really deadly for democracy.

Dr. Berman:

It's very hard for democracy to work well in that kind of situation. We also have a political system that now we can see in this kind of situation in particular, has a whole variety of flaws, that is to say, institutions that accentuate extremism rather than tamp down on it, the kinds of things again that probably your readers think about or read about in the news. Primary systems that reward extremism. So many safe districts that politicians have no incentive to appeal to moderate voters but rather just to the more extreme elements in their own party. An electoral system that allows plurality rather than majority candidates to win. A whole variety of things that really, again in this context, have not worked to kind of bring parties and people back towards the center, but rather really rewarded more extreme or radical positions and appeals In 2016,.

Shawn:

The impact of this rhetoric by Donald Trump was in its infancy. The Republican Party as an institution wasn't fully on board, because who knew how far you could take this strategy? Other influential personalities in the political and social world hadn't yet evolved into the sycophants they would become. The evangelical world had not yet coalesced around this crude, unchristian candidate as their savior, and the violent fringe far-right chaos agents, most visibly represented in militia groups, didn't quite yet see the role Trump could play in achieving their goal of social collapse and a race war In January 2021,. We saw the fruits of this labor ripening when Trump called on a mob to storm the Capitol and, in effect, carry out a coup. They did and, in effect, carry out a coup. They did, and the Republican officials inside the Capitol where they were being attacked defended Trump and bailed him out. Dr Shaw describes how this evolution of the Republican Party to extreme ends impacts the types of policies they embrace, specifically as it relates to the LGBTQ plus community.

Dr. Shaw:

I think looking at history can provide important context and lessons learned that we can apply to the current debate, but I think it also helps put into context just how much bigger the challenges that we're facing in this current moment.

Dr. Shaw:

I think you're right to point out what happened in the 70s and sort of early 80s. In some ways, we're seeing the same rhetoric deployed right In terms of needing to pass anti-LGBTQ measures under the guise of protecting children, and we're seeing that type of rhetoric and framing resurface. I think what's different is that in that previous historical period there were still public officials, particularly on the right, who came out in opposition to those measures those measures you know. For example, Ronald Reagan, who was governor of California at the time, ultimately came out publicly in opposition to the Briggs Amendment, which would have prohibited gay and lesbian teachers from working in public schools. I think the difference today is that we don't see that kind of moderation from the Republican Party or from officials on the right, and in fact, the center of gravity around these issues and where it is politically advantageous for conservative officials to stand on these issues, has shifted so far to the right that we're not hearing that sort of moderating force.

Shawn:

This year. Trump has complete control over the Republican Party and his supporters. He knows the power he has and he's willing to use it. Over the course of the past nine years, donald Trump has relentlessly attacked American democracy. He's successfully tapped into deep-seated fears and prejudices, knowing that when people feel threatened, they're more likely to support strongman leaders who promise to protect them. This creates a dangerous cycle as fear and division grow. So does support for the authoritarian measures he calls for, which in turn further erode democratic norms and institutions. Dr Peter Fritsch, professor of history at the University of Illinois and author of the book Hitler's First 100 Days, describes the moment we're currently in.

Dr. Fritzsche:

In America you have a middle class that's left behind. You have deindustrialization. The thing is is that they vote contrary to their economic interests because of these cultural factors that are important and you don't want to devalue those either. But I mean, the middle class have been shafted for almost 50 years in this country. That's certainly true and I've been saying this for a long time and I've talked about kind of economic nationalism from the left for a long time, of economic nationalism from the left for a long time, but Trump's not going to help them.

Dr. Fritzsche:

I think most dangerous in America is the willingness of previously I mean people like Lindsey Graham I think is a really good example friend of McCain and so on Total opportunists, totally weak. Better Trump, better Republican victory, better the GOP than Democrats in an unquestioned constitutional order. The Republicans never questioned the vote until it was questioned. When asked about the vote in early October 2020, they said that it was going to be fine. In early October 2020, they said that it was going to be fine and everyone knew it was going to be a close election or even a Biden win. So it really does matter that. The audaciousness and horribleness of Trump and people around him Very merciless, but that's what it takes if you're going to have a. I mean, nazis were like that too. The Nazis didn't give a shit about the Constitution. Used it when they could, but otherwise were very clear about what they were going to do Advertise concentration camps, advertise the guillotine as a means of revenge and retribution. I view this as a very dangerous moment.

Shawn:

We in the United States are in a very precarious position this year. It might be easy to dismiss Donald Trump and his rhetoric as the angry, convoluted rantings of a fading old man, but that would be a mistake. While much of Trump's behavior today is reminiscent of candidate Trump in 2016 and then President Trump in 2020, this iteration is much more dangerous. While he was never considered a disciplined candidate, as he runs for the presidency again, trump seems completely unhinged, going much further than he did running for office in 2016 and then 2020. And there are reasons for this. One, he owns the Republican Party top to bottom. He's neutralized any internal threat. This means that he has become untethered from any sense of fear that he might be ostracized from the party for saying or doing anything too far beyond the pale. In fact, he can now count on them to go as low as he does. Two, he has methodically and single-mindedly built a base of support that is rooted in hatred, rage and violence against outgroups people to be blamed for pretty much anything they don't like, and by demonizing Democrats as evil, unchristian, pedophiles and murderers, he has eliminated a potential home for anyone that might tend Republican but be uncomfortable with the current iteration of the party. So be loyal or be politically homeless.

Shawn:

Finally, and this is what might make Trump the most dangerous, why democracy in the United States is under particular threat right now in this election is that Donald Trump faces a daunting array of legal challenges that could actually result in prison time If he remains a private citizen.

Shawn:

He also faces further prosecution and financial penalties that could eviscerate his wealth. This heightens the stakes for him, creating a scenario where Trump likely views winning the 2024 election as his only and last viable option to avoid prison, keep his money and wield a crushing amount of power to destroy his enemies. We're already witnessing how this sense of desperation influences his behavior and his language in ways that he had kept checked previously. His willingness to openly assert that the constitution should be cancelled, that he will be dictator for day one, that he will wield his military to invade sovereign countries like Mexico and blue cities in the United States itself, that he will act as the supreme form of retribution on behalf of his supporters, and that political violence in his name and at his direction is not violence but martyrdom. All of this is Donald Trump saying that he is full steam ahead on ruling the United States as an authoritarian, and I mean he's saying it out loud to our faces. We should believe him. Check back next week for another episode of After America.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host