The United States is currently
grappling with a very disturbing political landscape. In one of the most
negative presidential elections of all time, divides between political parties
have become increasingly apparent and the language that separates these groups
has moved from negative to eerily familiar. In fact, the divide between
liberals and conservatives in the United States today often exemplifies group
thinking, discrimination and genocidal rhetoric.
One of the hallmarks of genocidal
attitudes is the appearance and division of groups. The political party system
in the United States conveniently divides the country into two fairly distinct
camps: Democrats and Republicans. These groups easily break up the country’s
problems into black and white for the voting pleasures of the populace. It
doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans actually reside somewhere in the
gray area between liberal and conservative, as Gustav LeBon puts it “feelings
can blur individual differences.” The party system also has the ability to sway
opinions based on the fact that a voter may already identify with a group. In
his book Killers of Conviction, James
Waller says, “group dynamics can alter the thoughts, feelings and behaviors […]
of individuals within a group.” Political parties have the ability to sway an
opinion based on the mere fact that an individual identifies themselves as a
member of the group. Of course, if the Democratic Party decided tomorrow to
exterminate every member of an arbitrary minority, a Democrat would not
necessarily agree, but subtle changes in ideology, such as opinions on new
bills or political candidates can have a massive impact. If such changes were
implemented subtly and with enough conviction (for example the Tea Party’s
dehumanization of homosexuality) grave steps could be taken given enough time
and perhaps more importantly, enough power.
That being said, political parties
are not unique to the United States; genocidal rhetoric is not a sole
consequence of their existence. What does make the United States unique is our
tendency to view the opposite party as “other.” It begins with Michael Mann’s
assertion that a democracy of “we the people,” immediately allows for the
exclusion of an “other” group. Animosity towards the opposite group can lead to
parties grouping the enemy into a wholly bad entity and the dehumanization of
the opponent. For example, the conservative comparison of abortion to murder
instantaneously demonizes those who are pro-choice. When one group demonizes
another it makes it much easier to rationalize action against them. The idea of
the welfare “parasite” meanwhile, often spouted by political pundits on Fox News, dehumanizes
those who rely on welfare (and often vote Democrat) to something even lesser
that an animal. Language like that calls to mind the Nazi pamphlet that
proclaimed the “Jews
as World Parasite”. Naturally the Democrats are certainly at fault here as
well. Liberals, especially in the media, have a habit of demonizing Republicans
as well. Often times they have painted Republicans as rich, out-of-touch and
sometimes even of lesser
intelligence. Even if either party is correct in their accusations, the
fact that the group is attacked, rather than the individual, allows for the
accusers to identify individuals based on singular beliefs.
Of course the use of familiar
language and the divide between political parties does not mean that the United
States will soon experience a genocide of epic proportions. Our country remains
completely stratified in its competing interests and we continue to deal with
class struggles to this day –two reasons Mann cited that kept democracies from descending
to genocide. What we do need to realize is that our system cannot continue to
move in this direction. The two sides of
the political spectrum must learn mutual respect and cooperation and leave the
genocidal rhetoric behind.
The political landscape in the United States is quite disturbing indeed. The emphasis on group separation based on political parties, while not a new problem, has led to a noticeable lack of political cooperation between the Republican and Democratic parties. Exacerbating this lack of cooperation is the increasingly divisive discourse amongst its citizens, in which discrimination and genocidal rhetoric are more noticeable than in years past. This national discourse has embraced hateful speech and violent actions against fellow citizens and those living in other nations. In particular, groups such as the Tea Party which follow fanatical philosophies, reject any ideology which does not adhere to their own. Such groups typify the 'othering' of political parties, cultures, and peoples, as well as the power of group thought in influencing individual's beliefs.
ReplyDeleteEven though these developments have not resulted in outright genocide, there are interesting parallels between said changes in the United States and how they may affect our national future and the rise of the NSDAP in the Weimar Republic. In much the same way that the NSDAP incrementally changed the language and topics of discourse in the Weimar Republic, the Tea Party and organizations like it have altered the language of political discourse in the United States. In addition, people who embrace ideologies of or similar to the Tea Party often support austerity policies, attacks on democratic freedoms, the proliferation and radicalization of extremists, and conservative alliances with corporate groups, all of which are similar to the political practices of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Through the murder of abortion doctors, voter identification laws which disenfranchise many poor, African American, and/or Latino American voters, and the misinterpretation of national principles, such as the separation of church and state, groups such as the Tea Party have shifted the United States to increasingly conservative positions. Since the inception of the Tea Party movement, peoples whose political associations range from centrist Republicans to extreme conservatives have adopted many Tea Party positions, including a rejection of liberal academia, general anti-intellectualism, and greater economic accommodation of major corporations, such as in the case of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The demonization of perceived outside groups, such as agnostics, atheists, non-Christian denominations, welfare recipients, and liberals, also invoke similarities in the Nazi treatment of Jews, Roma, disabled, Slavic, and Communist groups.
While there are distinctive linguistic, cultural, religious, and national traditions between the United States and Weimar Germany, Mann's assertion that organic democratic nations are very capable of committing genocide allows for the possibility that outside and/or internal factors can lead to greater organicism in the United States, and possible genocide in the future. Since many extremist groups will not listen to reasonable alternatives or compromise with perceived external groups, it is unclear whether mutual respect and cooperation can be established in the United States today. However, by learning how one group orchestrated genocides against another, and the commonalities that we contemporarily share with those who committed past genocides, peoples living in the United States will have greater knowledge of how and why genocides occur. Hopefully, with proper agency, such knowledge can help to prevent genocide from occurring in the United States before rhetoric and discrimination lead to irrevocable action.
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/bill-moyers-exposes-stranglehold-corporate-right-wing
http://www.alternet.org/story/156078/weimar_america%3A_four_major_ways_we%27re_following_in_germany%27s_fascist_footsteps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hEG-5_9nK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_858419&feature=iv&src_vid=3hEG-5_9nK4&v=cqPc93Pvs0U
Genocidal Rhetoric and the Far Right
ReplyDeleteSeveral posts here have discussed genocidal dynamics in American politics. They focused particularly on Republicans and illegal immigration and argued that when Republicans (a party comprised mostly of white people) talk about illegal immigrants, they use rhetoric that could promote some version of genocide or ethnic-cleansing. I offer that genocide plays an additional role in this situation: white Republicans feel they themselves are victims of cultural genocide.
There are many reasons for Republicans’ stances on issues like immigration, gay marriage, and welfare, but self-victimization explains the more extreme attitudes on these issues. Joan Walsh, editor at Salon.com recently published a book called What’s the Matter With White People? Why We Long For a Golden Age That Never Was. (See http://www.salon.com/2012/08/17/white_and_whiter/) Her book examines some of the motivations that the majority of white America (though not a huge majority) has for its harsh stances on minority rights.
As in many of the genocides we have studied, culture and religion play the central role. Despite the fact that the United States upholds freedom from religion, Republicans cling to the idea that we are a Christian nation. They describe comprehensive sexual education and gay marriage as attacks on “family values” and mobilize in support of candidates who run on family values platforms. Though these appear to be political actions, they are actually attempts to defend a cultural lifestyle which a strong cohort of christian Conservatives believe to be true Americanism. This provides evidence that white Conservatives believe they are victims of some form of cultural destruction.
Republicans’ position on welfare exemplifies the way Conservatives play victims in American economic culture. Republicans firmly believe in capitalism and vehemently oppose redistributive programs. The language they use in Ms. Disston’s example of “welfare parasites” speaks to their belief that welfare and other forms of redistribution conflict with an “American” way of living which they feel is under attack.
Attacks on welfare also have racial undercurrents. Many white Republicans view welfare as a way for middle and upper class whites to prop up lower class blacks. They usually veil these racial implications, but they do exist. Perhaps most recently made evident when Rick Santorum said he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money” (and then said that’s not actually what he said). (See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350990-503544/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/)
Analyzing social dimensions of Conservatism in American politics does not explain the causes of genocide or mass murder, but it does illustrate the power of identity and the importance of self-victimization in people who use genocidal rhetoric. Genocidal rhetoric often springs from a perception that a version of genocide already exists, however hysterical or baseless. In the cases we have studied previously, a group who was unified by a national, religious, or racial identity carried out the genocide. But they victimized themselves first by proclaiming that their targets were threats to their safety or way of life and justified their actions on that basis. (In both the Holocaust and Armenian genocide, the notion that Jews’ and Armenians’ professional success was damaging their societies fueled discrimination against them.) Whether or not this defense motivated mass killing is debatable but it did make discrimination, the first step towards genocide, easier. The more extreme strand of the Republican Party has taken that first step in their antagonistic political rhetoric.