SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
white nationalism
Trump Pick for State Dept Post 'Espoused White Nationalist and Islamophobic Views'
In a 2016 anti-immigrant essay, Michael Anton wrote that "the burden is forced on Americans to prove that Muhammed is a terrorist or Jose is a criminal, and if we can't, we must let them in."
Dec 23, 2024
Further fueling fears of what the incoming Trump administration will mean for immigrants and people of color, a watchdog group on Monday highlighted various essays by Michael Anton, who is slated to take on a key role at the U.S. Department of State.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced earlier this month that Anton would become director of policy planning at the State Department. Trump said that he previously "served me loyally and effectively" as a National Security Council spokesperson during the Republican's first term and "spent the last eight years explaining what an America First foreign policy truly means."
In a Monday publication first reported on by USA Today, the watchdog Accountable.US detailed how "Anton has espoused white
nationalistic and Islamophobic views and has written numerous conspiracy theory-laden articles about Democratic 'coup' attempts and supposed widespread voter fraud."
The group spotlighted "Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism," a nearly 6,000-word essay that Anton published under the Latin pseudonym Publius Decius Mus at The Unz Review on March 10, 2016, eight months before Trump was elected to his first term. Anton's use of the pen name was first revealed in early 2017 by The Weekly Standard, a now-defunct neoconservative magazine.
In the 2016 essay, Anton wrote that "Trump's two slogans—'Make America Great Again' and 'Take Our Country Back'—point to the heart of Trumpism: 'America First,'" and "the Constitution and the social compact it enshrines are for us—the American people—and not for foreigners, immigrants (except those we choose to welcome), or anyone else."
Anton praised Trump for "his willingness—eagerness—gleefulness!—to mock the ridiculous lies we've been incessantly force-fed for the past 15 years (at least)," writing in part:
"Diversity" is not "our strength"; it's a source of weakness, tension, and disunion. America is not a "nation of immigrants"; we are originally a nation of settlers, who later chose to admit immigrants, and later still not to, and who may justly open or close our doors solely at our own discretion, without deference to forced pieties. Immigration today is not "good for the economy"; it undercuts American wages, costs Americans jobs, and reduces Americans' standard of living. Islam is not a "religion of peace"; it's a militant faith that exalts conversion by the sword and inspires thousands to acts of terror—and millions more to support and sympathize with terror.
As Common Dreams has reported since Trump's latest White House victory last month, numerous analyses have warned that the Republican's promised mass deportations will not only have devastating impacts on people but be "catastrophic" for the economy.
Anton's essays have repeatedly referenced the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In March 2016, he suggested that it was "insane" to allow Muslims to immigrate after that, writing: "Yes, of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, blah, blah, blah, etc. Even so, what good has Muslim immigration done for the United States and the American people? If we truly needed more labor—a claim that is manifestly false—what made it necessary to import any of that labor from the Muslim world?"
"From a region and a faith that is at best ambivalent about the societies that welcome them and at worst murderously hostile? This question has, until now, been ruled wholly out of bounds—illegitimate even to raise," he continued. "Immigration to the United States—by Muslims or anyone else—is presented as a civil right for foreigners: the burden is forced on Americans to prove that Muhammed is a terrorist or Jose is a criminal, and if we can't, we must let them in. Trump alone among major political figures has stood up to say this is nonsense."
Another infamous essay noted by Accountable.US cites 9/11: Using the same pen name, Anton wrote "The Flight 93 Election," published by the Claremont Review of Books on September 5, 2016, referencing the United Airlines flight that ended with a plane crash in Pennsylvania, after passengers fought the hijackers.
"2016 is the Flight 93 election: Charge the cockpit or you die," Anton argued, taking aim at Trump's Democratic challenger that year. "If you don't try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances."
Accountable.US also pointed to a pair of essays from 2020 and 2021 in which Anton accused Democrats of plotting a coup, peddled voter fraud conspiracy theories, and—in one of them—downplayed the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Both of those publications appeared with Anton's real name.
After his time in the first Trump administration, Anton went on to work as a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College. Previously, he was a speechwriter for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ex-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.
Anton did not respond to USA Today's request for comment, but Trump transition spokesperson Dan Holler framed him as an asset to Trump's nominee for secretary of state—Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the son of Cuban immigrants—in a statement to the newspaper.
"President Trump and Sen. Rubio are building out an all-star team to deliver on the America First agenda the country demanded," Holler said. "As director of policy planning, Michael Anton will play an important role in implementing an America First foreign policy."
Meanwhile, Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk on Monday released a statement putting pressure on Rubio—who would typically select the candidate for that post, which does not require Senate confirmation, according to USA Today.
"Michael Anton hid behind a pseudonym to spread hate and deride diversity as a source of American weakness. But he'd surely wear his extremism on his sleeve if appointed to a top State Department post," said Carrk. "Anton's rhetoric against people he deems culturally undesirable may be music to the ears of President-elect Trump, father of the kids-in-cages policy who threatens to end birthright citizenship. But is Marco Rubio willing to stand by Anton's extremist views if he's confirmed secretary of state?"
The president-elect's other selections who have sparked alarm on the immigration front include Stephen Miller—an architect of the family separation policy from Trump's first term—for deputy chief of staff for policy and Tom Homan as "border czar."
Trump has also chosen anti-immigrant, dog-killing Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for secretary of homeland security and former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard—who has a history of being "extremely sympathetic" to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Russian President Vladimir Putin—for director of national intelligence.
Both of those roles generally require Senate confirmation, as does the defense secretary. Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon is "Fox & Friends" co-host Pete Hegseth, a "lobbyist for war criminals" who, in his own words, "was deemed an extremist" because of his Jerusalem Cross tattoo, which led to him not joining his National Guard unit for President Joe Biden's inauguration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Digging Deep and Planting Seeds in the Face of Trump 2.0
This is a moment of radical uncertainty. No one knows. For many of us, that’s terrifying. Simply acknowledging this, rather than insisting on forced optimism or self-righteous action, feels necessary.
Nov 30, 2024
This is neither plan nor polemic. I am as lost as anyone in the face of Trump 2.0. I fluctuate between deep grief, existential fear, anger, privilege guilt, and Go mode.
I’m living on a tiny blue island in the middle of a sea of white nationalism in the Pacific Northwest. In just the last few years, synagogues have been attacked, a predominantly Black women’s NCAA basketball team was verbally harassed, books are being banned, trans athletes are being benched, and a militia rolled up on a Pride parade. There are real enemies living right around the corner, and they are emboldened.
We don’t have to decide whether Trump 2.0 is same ole, same ole or apocalypse now. We can recognize both can be true.
So, I am less interested in the election blame game than in figuring out how to prepare for what’s coming. Still, I’m compelled to reject the way the left, ”identity politics,” and ”woke agendas” are being scapegoated yet again as the reason the Democrat lost. That plays into the hatemongering on the right that is causing real harm. As Debt Collective organizer Astra Taylor wrote: “The fate of democracy is too precious to leave in the hands of the Democratic Party.”
I’ve been casting out a line hoping to reel in The Answer to meeting this moment. That’s where I think I get it wrong. I am trying to find solid ground, a correct position, a strategy. After an initial beat of stillness in the morning after, many answers are now on offer. Often, they are presented in contrast to what they are not. Two dominant themes keep reemerging.
Continuity Versus Rupture
Some are stressing that the U.S. has always been an “imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.” They counter liberal surprise with “you are awakening to the same country you fell asleep to. The very same country. Pull yourself together.” I’m reminded that after Donald Trump’s 2016 win, Native scholar-activists offered, “Welcome to the Empire. Where did you think you were living?” A week after this election, Mishuana Goeman told those of us gathered at the American Studies Association (ASA) conference in Baltimore, “The empire is meant to crumble.” She and other scholars reminded us of Indigenous survivance, generative imagination, kinship, and generational time.
Others are underscoring this moment as new, as a rupture, as a sharp right turn into authoritarianism. While not denying the history and on-going structures of U.S. state violence, they are encouraging us to recognize the difference of this moment. At a post-election event in Oakland, Angela Davis offered, “This is terribly new. It’s new with a terror.”
Step Back and Rest Versus Strategize and Fight
Many people are talking about resting in this post-election period, with various commitments to rejoining the fight. They are stepping back, disengaging from organizing, turning off the news, unplugging from social media (I’m not talking here about those who are overwhelmed, paralyzed, or permanently checking out). I hear this from liberal white colleagues. And from mainstream media stories about Black women stepping back.
Exhaustion seems to be the biggest motivation for stepping back, but a few others are circulating. Some question whether Trump really wants, or will be able, to follow through on his campaign promises. Others worry that believing the autocrat and focusing on what he says he’ll do could add to a sense of despair or panic. Still others are cynically signaling that voters deserve what’s coming.
Some are counseling, as they did in the pandemic, that we don’t know what light might emerge from the darkness—that the only constant is change.
At the other end of the spectrum, many are urging us to dig in, to (re)build networks, to strategize, to provide resources to those already under direct attack (e.g. Palestinian solidarity activists, DEI practitioners and educators, immigrant and trans communities). They note that the shock and awe campaign has already begun, the chaos is calculated and lying is the point. We are meant to feel overwhelmed—it’s literally part of the plan.
Some are focusing on things the Biden administration, Democratic governors, and local governments could be doing in this window before Trump takes office. There’s also the caution that, in an authoritarian context, institutions will not save us and so we need to organize to save ourselves. As one organizer put it, “We have everything we need. The fight is long, but winnable.”
Beyond Binaries
I’ve been examining the arguments, trying to determine which I should commit to, but they all have merit. I am remembering to be skeptical of binaries, to think beyond either/or, to cultivate humility, generosity, and imagination. This is particularly critical considering the vicious attacks on nonbinary and trans folx, and the way Democrats have thrown them under the bus.
We don’t have to decide whether Trump 2.0 is same ole, same ole or apocalypse now. We can recognize both can be true. We don’t need to choose between resting or fighting. We can remember we are part of larger intergenerational collectivities that can hold us while we do both.
Like the pandemic, this is a moment of radical uncertainty. No one knows. For many of us, that’s terrifying. Simply acknowledging this, rather than insisting on forced optimism or self-righteous action, feels necessary. It’s also a more humble, generous stance. If we learned nothing else, the pandemic absolutely showed us we need to build systems of care, networks grounded in revolutionary love. Barbara Ransby encourages us to remember that “most importantly, we have each other.”
Some are counseling, as they did in the pandemic, that we don’t know what light might emerge from the darkness—that the only constant is change. At the ASA conference Roderick Ferguson offered: “What we believe to be the nadir may also be the emergence. Plant seeds, walk away, don’t hover, trust your planting... Teach others to plant seeds.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Are You Ready Now to Solve the Problem Bigger Than Trump?
This isn't "I told you so." This is, "let's talk about where we go from here."
Nov 16, 2024
We could argue about what mistakes Democrats made this election. Of course they made mistakes because, obviously, they didn’t succeed in stopping the reactionary right. But how about instead of assigning blame we begin to find solutions?
I’ve argued for awhile in articles and books that the problem we face isn’t Trump. The problem and threat to our freedoms is the deeper, older movement that currently takes Trump as its figurehead.
The election result demonstrates that. If Trump was the problem, then the incessant mention of his many failings and absurdities would have led to a decline in his support. Trump is pathetic, delusional, and corrupt, and those traits would eliminate support for a leader, but Trump isn’t a leader. Trump is a figurehead. Nothing said about Trump changes the movement because the movement is not about Trump.
Easier said than done, but the doing of it is necessary. We have to show people the alternative.
Trump is the current focal point and spokesman of the right-wing American nationalist movement. There’s nothing new about Trump or in anything he’s ever said (well, except that “grab ‘em by the pussy” line). Trump’s divisive rhetoric rehashes the anti-immigrant and faux moral outrage propaganda that’s dominated American politics since the nation’s founding.
The American Right Wing
All right-wing movements seek to restore traditional power structures that restrict power to a small group, creating a two-tiered society of haves and have-nots. American nationalism’s right-wing ideology has two main components. One is the idea that America is exceptional and superior to other countries. The other is the idea that America’s exceptionalism can be maintained only by a two-tiered society concentrating power in white male Protestants; thus, giving power to nonwhite male Protestants corrupts the purity of America. When you understand these components of the American right wing’s ideology, everything they say and do makes more sense.
Trump didn’t invent American nationalism. Trump has never invented anything. He just slaps his name on things—buildings, planes, bibles, and American nationalism. He doesn’t care about anything or anyone but himself. If Trump has accomplished anything, it’s the con job of selling himself as a patriot to bilk people out of their money.
Ask the Correct Questions About the American Right Wing
Attacking Trump leaves America’s underlying right wing unscathed. Instead, address the causes. Ask why some Americans want a two-tiered society and why they think that makes America exceptional. Ask why those Americans want to keep power away from whole classes of other Americans.
Asking those questions gets to the core of the problem. Doing so will reveal why some Americans want Trump as their figurehead, why they don’t care about his crimes and boorish behavior, and why they believe his lies rather than the truth about him. They support Trump because he says he hates the same people they hate, and they believe he will relegate those people to being the have-nots in America’s two-tiered society.
It’s about acquiring meaning. People who support and even idolize Trump get feelings of importance and meaning from belonging to a movement. That’s common human behavior. People frequently join groups and/or become fans of public figures to gain a sense of importance and identity.
People gravitate to American nationalism to buttress their sense of self— a sense of meaning that comes at the cost of other people’s rights and sometimes lives. That’s what we are dealing with—that right-wing people get their senses of power and meaning from being American nationalists.
It’s not about Trump. The targets of our efforts to maintain freedom need to be to counter the American right wing movement and the millionaires using it as tools to gain more wealth and power. These realities are not grasped or talked about enough, including by the Democratic Party.
Smarter Opposition
The problem we face is the older, larger, deeper right-wing movement. That movement finds success because it is funded by big money corporate interests, and it sells a vision of a two-tiered America. The sales campaign succeeds by offering people a sense of meaning wrapped in the flag of American nationalism.
Defending freedom and equality for all Americans requires that we oppose the ideology of the American right wing. The Democratic Party’s strategy of attacking Trump and reaching out to moderate Republicans didn’t work, as if it ever could have. A better strategy is getting back to basics and dealing with people and their need for meaning.
We should talk about people voting against their own self-interest when they vote for right-wing politicians. But instead of talking down to them as being ignorant, we need to show how they can find meaning in the other America.
MAGA people support Trump because he says he hates the same people they hate. Other people will side with the right-wing agenda because they find something in it with which they can identify. We can’t expect to talk with or affect the MAGA followers, but we can offer the rest of the country an alternative to the American right wing.
What would that alternative be? We can start by acknowledging that there have always been two Americas.
The America that’s a nation of immigrants, and the America that demonizes immigrants.
The America that rewards hard work, and the America that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the working class.
The America that promises liberty and justice for all, and the America of slavery and segregation.
The America of universal suffrage, and the America of voter suppression.
The America that defends freedom, and the America that defends corporate interests.
Politics is about power, and the American right wing wants the America that concentrates power into a two-tiered society favoring one group over others. The wealthy, who benefit the most from that America, sell their right-wing agenda by offering people a sense of meaning even though they aren’t tangibly benefiting from the right-wing agenda.
A smarter opposition to the right wing is to offer people the alternative of the America of opportunity and freedom. Not just talk about that other America, build it, show to people that we’re serious by doing it.
Easier said than done, but the doing of it is necessary. We have to show people the alternative. We should talk about the Project 2025 agenda of an America that concentrates power in the rich elites. We also need to talk about the other America that circulates power among the people.
We should talk about people voting against their own self-interest when they vote for right-wing politicians. But instead of talking down to them as being ignorant, we need to show how they can find meaning in the other America.
When Project 2025 starts screwing over people, we need to have a better alternative agenda ready for them. It won’t help to tell them we told them so. If we remain tepid, or worse, hostile, they will stick with the right wing.
We need to solve a problem much deeper than Trump. We need to stand against that larger American right-wing agenda, but more importantly, work to help everyone else.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular