|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest report, Exposing Extremism in Elections, reveals a troubling development in American politics: extremist narratives, once confined to the fringes, are now a staple in mainstream electoral campaigns. Examining 58 communications from 27 candidates between August and November 5, 2024, the report highlights how these narratives have seeped into campaign rhetoric across federal, state, and local races. While not labeling candidates as extremists, the analysis underscores how the ideas of hate and antigovernment movements are shaping political discourse, threatening the fabric of a pluralistic democracy.
The report focuses on campaign narratives that employ racist, xenophobic, and antisemitic themes, which are often deeply intertwined. Three emerging subnarratives gained traction during the fall season. One of these centered on racist attacks against Black women, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris. Candidates perpetuated stereotypes about Black intelligence and work ethic, framing Harris’s achievements as the product of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs rather than merit. Such rhetoric underscored how DEI, like the term “woke,” has become a catch-all pejorative in far-right circles. Comments from figures like Harriet Hageman of Wyoming and Tim Burchett of Tennessee epitomized this narrative, suggesting Harris was an unqualified “DEI hire.”
Anti-immigrant narratives remained the largest single category of extremist rhetoric, accounting for nearly a quarter of the analyzed communications. Over half of these referenced the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, a white nationalist belief that immigrants are intentionally replacing white populations in majority-white countries. In Springfield, Ohio, racist rumors about Haitian immigrants stealing and eating pets spilled into national discourse. Candidates, including Donald Trump and Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, amplified these baseless claims, with Blackburn distributing stickers that read “they’re eating the cats” at a football game. Trump repeated the falsehood during a presidential debate, and his running mate, JD Vance, defended the narrative as a tactic to draw attention to broader immigration issues.
Election conspiracy theories also saw a sharp increase in the fall campaign season, with rhetoric designed to preemptively delegitimize unfavorable outcomes. Communications alleging a “stolen” election rose significantly compared to the spring, with candidates targeting mail-in voting and claiming artificial intelligence would be used to manipulate results. These narratives frequently overlapped with antisemitic tropes, as candidates demonized figures like George Soros, perpetuating stereotypes about Jewish influence on American politics. Tim Burchett, for instance, accused Soros of plotting to destroy the country, invoking imagery of Jewish “puppet masters” controlling electoral outcomes.
The SPLC report draws a direct line between these narratives and the ideologies of hate and antigovernment movements, demonstrating their growing influence on mainstream campaigns. The findings align with patterns observed in earlier election cycles, such as 2020 and 2022, but also reflect an escalation in both the volume and extremity of the rhetoric. These narratives, while often dismissed as political posturing, carry real-world consequences by eroding trust in democratic institutions and endangering marginalized communities.
By highlighting the prevalence of these extremist narratives, the SPLC’s report serves as a sobering reminder of the stakes involved in countering hate-driven rhetoric in American politics. The normalization of these ideas poses a direct threat to the nation’s democratic ideals, leaving the public to grapple with the question: How much farther will this trend go before the integrity of our elections is irreparably compromised?
