According to what’s been reported this week about remarks from the Democrat apparatus supporting Kamala Harris, I am a fascistic Nazi piece of human garbage who worships Hitler and is married to a weak, stupid woman, and we both want to kill our mothers and daughter.
Among the many differences between American liberals and conservatives is the thickness of our skins. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but by and large conservatives don’t take this sort of wacky hyperbole very seriously. That’s why conservatives can wear ‘Deplorable’ and ‘Toxic Masculinity’ and ‘Garbage Man’ t-shirts with pride and a hint of a smirk. Most conservatives know these slanders are preposterous, giving license to mock their unhinged accusers.
But there’s something more revealing behind this sort of name calling. This rage isn’t simply analogous to that of an aggrieved junior high schooler angry over some social slight. It’s an integral component of an ideology spawned in the mid-19th century by Karl Marx. I have not heard Harris or running mate Tim Walz or billionaire Mark Cuban describe themselves as Marxists so I won't call them that. But what they’re saying and doing reflects Marxist thought, strategy and tactics, leaving their behavior open to legitimate scrutiny.
In a review of the book Marxism Unmasked by economist Ludwig von Mises, Samford University Associate Professor Art Carden summed up the Marxist strategy writing, “Confront one who disagrees. Slander him as a bourgeois or as a mere defender of bourgeois class interests. Use this as a pretext for rejecting his ideas wholesale. Move on to the next step in the revolution, contradicting theory and evidence be damned.
That’s what we’re seeing in the closing hours of this campaign. We don’t hear much about the bourgeoisie these days but the larger point is that Marxism seeks to divide people into groups and then marginalize any group that stands in opposition to them. In the modern era, Marx provided the template for identity politics.
But Marx had it easy. All he needed to do 175 years ago was divide people into two groups - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It was simple in the 1850s but it’s more complicated today. American Democrats still divide people based on their socio-economic status like Marx did, but they also divide people based on race, ethnicity, sex and sexual proclivities, religion, and other factors that define a pluralistic society. This is why identity politics is so messy.
Identity politics necessarily divides people. It fails to unify by design and the resulting agitation of people isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. For all the talk of unifying the nation behind the Harris campaign, it’s a lie that is betrayed by the rhetoric we’re hearing from its surrogates. The idea that a candidate or political party can unite a nation by calling half of its people garbage is absurd.
History shows that the agitation model of politics can work. It worked in Russia during the early 20th century, just as it worked in China several decades later. But in these two examples, identity politics was imposed and enforced by violence. Without authoritarian violence, identity politics cannot be effectively and enduringly foisted upon a nation.
We see hints of this in America today. It’s not widely or evenly applied but it’s happening before our eyes. One group of rioters goes free while a different group is hunted down and imprisoned. Some people defy Congress without consequence while others are taken away in chains and jailed. The American system prevents the widespread application of this level of force but there are cracks in the system, and it’s something that should concern all of us.
The Balkanization of the American people requires slander. It’s the most effective means of separating people from their neighbors and family members, which is why it’s a core component of identity politics and Marxism. The fact that this is being done deliberately by people asking for our vote is disgraceful and more than a little frightening.
Americans have a chance this year to repudiate identity politics and the damage it causes. Whether we will is the biggest question of the moment. Various pollsters suggest it may happen but the uncertainties of polling, combined with the vagaries of counting ballots and the inevitable irregularities that will arise in doing so, leave it an open question. Thomas Jefferson said “The government you elect is the government you deserve.” That’s a hard truth and we’ll find out how hard next week.