Mark Silk knocks it out of the park:
In recent years, the wise guys in the Republican Party have cottoned to the fact that the U.S. of A. has become a good deal more Latino than it used to be, and that it might not be such a good idea for the future of the GOP if it embraced (at least publicly) such anti-Latino-immigrant laws as Arizona passed a few months ago. Why not find a less politically potent body of Americans on which to vent one’s nativist animosity?
I give you: The Muslims. Unlike the Latinos, who are pushing toward 20 percent of the American population, they constitute less than one percent. And the largest portion of them are African-Americans who would never vote Republican anyway. But how to change the nativist narrative in time for November’s mid-term elections?
The Ground Zero Mosque, of course. Talk about godsends. In May, when the story emerged, the ratio of newspaper, broadcast, and blog coverage of the Arizona law to the proposed Islamic Center in Manhattan was 20:1. Last month, it was 10:1. So far this month, it’s been running at 1.3:1. That’s according to Lexis-Nexis Academic word searches of Arizona+law+immigration+Brewer and Ground Zero+mosque+protest. Add coverage of other anti-Muslim protests around the country and the ratio turns the other way.
Any party based on nativist insecurity needs an “other,” but what happens when that “other” gets dangerously close to becoming one of “us,” or just necessary to maintain your party’s viability? You pick a new “other.” Muslims: Still not white, but, more advantageously, they worship a nominally different god. At least Hispanics tend to be Catholic (read: socially conservative).
Wonder who will be next once these Christian theocrats discover that this “shariar-lawr” looks suspiciously like their aim of prayer and creationism in schools and no rights for women. Who’s left to hate?
Recent Comments