On any given day one can point to many incidents of craziness on the right. I agree that the rhetoric on the right is crazy. But I also believe that we must find themes to frame our own ideology to effectively combat the rhetoric of the right. Time and again, the left has won elections with effective messages only to discard our own message in favor of mocking the rhetoric of the right as crazy and their leadership as discredited. Having discounted the right as ineffective, we on the left fail to continue to frame our message to combat the beliefs which support the rhetoric of the right only to find that it has become reconstituted and gained new strength. Each time the right is reconstituted, its message is more racist and more violent than the last.
The three pillars on which the right wing builds their ideology are Christianity, capitalism and militarism. The left needs to frame arguments about religion, capitalism and the American military that will offer an alternative ideology. President Obama did this effectively during the campaign but since then, his positive rhetoric has largely been discarded by the left in favor of mockery of the right.
As a historian who focuses on the history of 20th century South Africa, I find the rhetoric of Afrikaner Nationalism fundamental to apartheid and the current rhetoric of the American right to be eerily similar. Like the rhetoric of the American right, Afrikaner Nationalism rested on pillars of Christianity, capitalism, and militarism to promote its ideology. Christian Nationalists appealed to the fears of poor whites (primarily Afrikaners) and the conservative upper class (primarily British) on the basis of the swart gevart (black danger). The underlying theme of this rhetoric was that way of life of whites--social, cultural, religious, and political--was threatened by the black majority. A report by the American Carnegie Commission on poor whiteism in South Africa, it was claimed, demonstrated that poor whites were losing ground to Africans in the early 20th century. Afrikaner Nationalists blamed British industrialists playing on prejudices of Afrikaners against British colonialists while at the same time claiming that African economic and educational advancement came at the expense of poor whites. This under-pinned a strategy by the Afrikaner Nationalists to use fear among whites that any reforms that improved the lives of Africans came at the cost of living standards and opportunities for white people and that white liberals were untrustworthy.
Conservative Christianity, based on the claim that God had a covenant with whites (specifically Afrikaners) and that anyone who did not ascribe to a rigid, fundamentalist view of Christianity was not really a Christian was part of that strategy. Afrikaner nationalism emphasized the importance of a patriarchal family structure in which the husband was the head of the household and the wife keeper of Afrikaner traditional way of life by having many children and teaching them Afrikaner history and traditions. African Christianity was segregated by the Two Spheres Doctrine which held essentially that Christians were equal in heaven but that was a different sphere from earth where God had anointed whites to civilize and Christianize peoples of color.
The strategy also included fear-mongering about socialism and communism as godless ideologies that would rob the people of the fruits of their labor and would cause God to rain down punishment upon the nation. "Jobs" for poor whites was an essential campaign theme as was so-called fiscal responsibility by individuals and the government. Maintenance of the social and cultural white "way of life" it was claimed, was threatened by any reforms which benefited Africans or other ethnic or mixed ethnicity groups. Africans, especially the African National Congress was alleged to be a communist organization because they cooperated with the Communist party in opposing the Nationalist government. Liberal whites, it was claimed were more interested in maintaining their own economic and cultural interests gained under British colonial rule than the interest of the nation. Liberals were characterized as both un-Godly and un-patriotic.
Thus, economic opportunity, and equal rights for all people in South Africa were equated with loss of rights and status for Afrikaners in particular and whites in general. Taxation was discriminatory and corporations were subsidized allegedly to encourage economic growth and job opportunities. In reality, the increased profits for corporate industrialists bought their silence and insured their collaboration with the system. The myth of "separate development" and government support of collaborative African leaders to positions in the so-called "Native Homelands" of the Transkei, Ciskei and KwaZulu (the most notorious being Chief Buthelezi) formed the basis on which the Nationalist government claimed that theirs was not a racist ideology. People needed to live separately for their own protection and to maintain their way of life.
Afrikaner Nationalists also argued that the threats posed by communism, African independence movements in countries to the north, and domestic terrorism required a strong military, an over-large defense budget, and domestic restrictions on civil liberties. Detention without trial, domestic spying and restrictions on political gatherings were legalized. Torture of detainees was ignored or justified on the basis of national security. Government spending prioritized military intervention in Angola, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Namibia, as well as an internal state security apparatus.
Those who promote the ideology of Amerikaner Nationalism have found a way to unite the prejudices of racists, fundamentalist Christians and working class, under-educated whites with upper class industrialists in a similar manner. Racists and fundamentalist Christians share a belief that the white Christian way of life is under attack by immigrants, poor people of color and Godless liberals. Upper class industrialists fear loss of their material status claiming that corporate welfare capitalism and entrepreneurial initiative will be undermined by government over-regulation and over-spending. Militarism is also common to these groups. Racists and fundamentalist Christians promote the elevation of American military history to mythical proportions. Revisionist history glorifying militarism now applies to the American War for Independence as supporting violent means to overthrow the results of any election with which the right disagrees. American militarism, defense department excess, restrictions on civil liberties, detention without trial, torture and rendition are justified as necessary to state security. All the while, upper class military industrialists profit from defense department contracts.
Amerikaner Nationalist rhetoric is promoted by members of the broadcast media who have been either co-opted by the commercial interests of their bosses, share the same ideology, or fear that the resounding defeat of the Republican Party in 2008 and the apparent disorganization of its leadership will lead to one party rule. Thus they publicize the racist and immoral appeals of the proponents of Amerikaner Nationalism under a fictitious guise of fairness. The rabid antics of the tea-baggers, the outlandish and crazy claims of the birthers, deathers, wild-eyed politicians and political pundits are strategic. They are intended to generate publicity for the rhetoric of Amerikaner Nationalism while at the same time appealing emotionally to the groups most susceptible to the ideology.
Understanding that many politicians are more worried about winning the next election than about the importance of doing what is right for their constituents, Amerikaner Nationalists bully and yell and scream. They rely on the fact that most politicians are unwilling to call each other out publicly even when some promote racist and violent division. Recognizing the reluctance of religious leaders to condemn each other for un-Christian and immoral behavior unless it involves sexual activity, Amerikaner Nationalist preachers selectively claim spiritual authority for their teachings knowing that more moderate Christian leaders are loathe to publicly condemn them for their twisted interpretations of Christianity.
Lust for power, influence and wealth unites right wing politicians, fundamentalist Christian leaders, military industrialists and proponents of a corporate welfare state in an unholy alliance. We on the left, need to articulate a cohesive message to combat the ideology of Amerikaner Nationalism. Can we set aside our own divisions and articulate a cohesive message to combat Amerikaner Nationalism and what should be included in that message?