I don’t get it. Our nation is 246-years-old, rather young in comparison with most countries, and yet the white supremacists and the radical wing of the Republican Party are advocating the replacement of black, brown, Muslims and Jews with white Americans.
Huh?
If it seems nonsensical, it is. To Fox TV’s Tucker Carlson and his ill-advised followers, the idea is to exploit the grievances of a minority of white people disgruntled over the loss of jobs and status. Since it cannot be their fault that they have not adapted to an economic reality that stresses information technology, it must be the fault of “others.”
Who are the “others?” They are different; they look different, they might speak differently and, in the case of the Jews, they are subject to the typical dog whistles of anti-semitism—but with a perverse twist. According to the twisted minds of replacement theorists, the Jews control corporate America and the media. Jews and elites are manipulating immigration to allow the entry of more non/whites.
Paranoia is a pernicious component of the replacement devotees as they observe the great strides made by Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. The white nationalists are not losing their country, just sharing it.
Their claims and concerns are absurd. They also are dangerous, another divisive element in our tribal country.
The principal objective is to stir hatred and mistrust. The worst result could be seen among those who precipitated the Jan. 6 insurrection, some wearing T-shirts with anti-Semitic messages. Fears of another Holocaust are pervasive.
Proponents of societal replacement are angry and frustrated. They have lost their jobs and homes. Their standard of living has dissipated. No one seems to care about them or families. They lash out with verbal attacks on their perceived enemies.
Domestic terrorism is a potent weapon. The recent killing of Blacks in Buffalo, the murder of 11 congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and the hostage taking at a synagogue outside Dallas are all examples of deadly actions in the name of ethnic grievances. The theme was always the same: replace those who, inadvertently, are diminishing the importance of American-born whites.
The galling aspect of replacement thinking and its impact on American values is the lack of condemnation by mainstream Republican politicians concerned about antagonizing the far right. Decency is subordinate to political ambition and fundraising.
Republican leadership is dormant. Cowardice is commonplace. Feed the grievances with more hatred. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews are fair game for hateful and disposable attacks, verbally and physically. Except it isn’t fair. It is, however, politically advantageous to mainstream Republicans.
In the best of all possible worlds, reconciliation and acceptance would triumph over replacement precepts. This country is young and vibrant. It can and does provide a blend of multiple races and creeds. Economic opportunity is not exclusive.
Republican leaders are failing to serve our country in the name of political gain, mixed with fear of extremist actors. Through silence, they condone misguided and malevolent behavior.
One word sums up the replacement theory: nonsense. Our country is stronger and healthier for its diversity and differences.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
Emmett Duke says
Mr. Freedlander certainly has a right to his imagination and opinions, but this kind of writing can only be intended to engender hate. What could be the purpose of this article, except to create a chasm between whites and non-whites. Or possibly between Republicans and Democrats?
If a moderate or conservative were to write something like this in a small town journal, he or she would rightly be called out for fear mongering. The writer would be chastised from all political views. It would be seen as what it is – an intentional and blatant effort to create (or add to) a divide between people. And for what, political advantage?
To be fair, I believe most of us can agree with the sentence, “Republican leaders are failing to serve our country in the name of political gain, mixed with fear of extremist actors.” But we could honestly say the same thing about the Democrat leaders. I also agree with his last two sentences. Our common goal should be to build a stronger country. But hopefully, we can do that without fomenting hate between our citizens – as is evidently the intent of this article.
Overall, It is an unfortunate and shameless piece, and it is unfortunate and shameless that the SPY allowed it to be published. We should be working to bring the people of our state and country together.
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Emmett, Very well done. The Dems have always been the party of division. Divide by race, income, gender and so forth.
Though perhaps seven Americans know this, the KKK WAS the Democrats. President Eisenhower, Republican, sent the 82nd airborne to insure students of color admittance into the public schools. Long forgotten, but true.
Thank you for this essay
Bob Moores says
Dear Stephen, I can’t let your fact-twisting go unchallenged.
You’re right that Eisenhower had to send Airborne troops (actually the 101st, not 82nd) to Little Rock in 1957 in order to make Gov Faubus (D) comply with the SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education. But at that time the ex-slave-holding, Bible belt states were anything but liberal Democrats. I don’t want to call them conservative Democrats because the vast majority of conservatives today do not promulgate racial bigotry.
In the sixties, civil rights were not Democrat/Republican issues, they were liberal vs southern bigotry issues. Proof is in the Senate vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Only one of 21 southern Democrats voted for the bill. The other 20 voted against it. There was only one southern Republican (Tower of Texas) and he voted against the bill.
Northern Democrats, on the other hand, voted 45-1 for the bill. Northern Republicans voted 27-5 for the bill, so in the north, Democrats showed more support for the bill than did Republicans.
Same situation with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In the sixties it was bigoted southern segregationist Democrats in the Bible Belt who were blocking civil rights, and liberals of both parties who overcame the bigots. It was a Democratic president (Johnson) and democratic majorities in both houses of Congress that got the job done.
As a result of the civil rights advancements forced on them by liberals of both parties, southern Democrats changed their affiliation to Republican, which is where they mostly stand today.
Your characterization of Democrats being KKK, though literally true, is thus misleading and way out of context. The KKK is nothing more than a far-right extremist group of white supremacists longing for the good old days when they could do whatever they wanted to do to blacks. They may have called themselves Democrats in the sixties, but they were in no way aligned with liberal principles of the Democratic Party as we know them today. Which Party does the KKK affiliate with today? It ain’t Democrats, my friend.
James Nick says
… And to add more context, the KKK was aligned with the Democratic Party because Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, destroyed the Confederacy and abolished slavery. The Democratic Party, split over slavery in 1860, was pretty much cast the into the political wilderness for the next 50 years.
The Republican Party’s own purification rite actually began after Lincoln progressives left the party to support Theodore Roosevelt in his (failed) third party challenge of Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Interrupted by the Depression and WWII, the Republican Party found new purpose after the civil rights legislation in the 1960s which accelerated the reversal of the ideological bases of the political parties.
Today, after 50 years of purification, we are left with a Republican Party that is the now the distilled essence of white Christian nationalism that seemingly seeks to turn the clock back to before the Age of Enlightenment.
Bob Moores says
Mr. Duke, It’s funny how two people can read the same opinion piece and interpret it so differently.
You think Mr. Freedlander’s purpose was to “engender hate” in our country. I thought it was to identify the growing problem of tribal bigotry that is becoming increasingly dangerous for our democracy.
We’ve had divisive issues before, racial bigotry being an ongoing example. Equality laws have helped, but we can’t abolish bigotry of the heart by legislation.
In the past I’ve looked to leadership to unite and inspire us to do better. But the most striking example I have ever seen of non-leadership in this regard is former president Trump. I’ve lived long enough to vote in fifteen presidential elections, sometimes voting democratic, sometimes republican, but I’ve never a president who made no attempt to heal our nation after he won. No, those who would not pledge personal allegiance to him continued to be the enemy. But the most damaging thing he did and continues to do, is subvert the principles of honesty, fair play, and our democracy by refusing to accept defeat in the 2020 election. He, and those who have fallen under his spell in desperately wanting to believe his lies, have no evidence that the 2020 election was any more “fraudulent” than any other. Our conservative Supreme Court agreed. Besides, if that election was “rigged”, how could it be rigged only in favor of Democrats? Are Democrats better election riggers than Republicans? Get logical!
Howard Freedlander says
It would be “unfortunate and shameless” if this Spy columnist were to pay no attention to the replacement theory and those who espouse it for the sheer purpose of propagating hatred and racism. Thank you, Emmett, for your comments.
Misha Hutchison says
Amen!
Don E. Itall says
The liberal think tank Center for American Progress said in 2013 that “[s]upporting real immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for our nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”
Salon wrote in 2008 that New Mexico’s growing Hispanic population had helped make the state solidly blue and speculated that the growing proportion of Hispanic voters in various swing states could create a permanent Democratic majority and land a Democrat in the White House in every presidential election.
“The idea that … whites will not be the majority [in our country] … [is] an exciting transformation of the country, …”
Anderson Cooper, interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, Aug. 2019
I could find hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes from Democrats openly espousing the idea of replacement theory (a term invented by Theodore G. Bilbo, a white Democrat who was a two-time governor and a thrice elected U.S. Senator from Mississippi).
Don’t blame Mr. Carlson for putting this Democratic theory under the spotlight, despite their denials.
Michael V Johnson says
Succinct and accurate assessment imho. With all the historic examples of where this radical right wing thinking takes us I am surprised and appalled by those I know buying into it. Reading the comments below I wonder what makes delusion so attractive to conservatives. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t make it a lie and just because you don’t like the results of an election doesn’t mean it was rigged . Policy supported by the GOP has more in common with Mein Kampf than the Constitution. That doesn’t mean I hate you, it just means I wish you would find a way to be more honest with yourselves. I challenge anyone of this articles detractors to be specific about any inaccuracies. I see nothing but truth in the words. If the truth makes you feel hate or anger that is your crap, not the authors !