Share via Close extra sharing options Email Facebook X LinkedIn Threads Reddit WhatsApp Copy Link URL Copied! Print

Copy Link URL Copied!

Boy, it’s been a struggle whipping up ugly racist sentiment since President Trump “closed” the border last year. No more stories about immigrant caravans marching ominously north to steal our jobs and rape our women. No more tall tales of Haitian gangs eating the cats, eating the dogs.

Sure, immigrants might still be “poisoning the blood” of our country, as the president claimed numerous times during his 2024 campaign. But with so many violent deportations and the killing of two white American citizens protesting them, that rhetoric has lost some of its glow.

What we need are some fresh scapegoats. Who can white people blame now for their woes?

Hey, I know! How about Muslims?

The election of New York City’s first Muslim mayor, a democratic socialist, along with Trump’s poorly thought-out war on Iran, has given the bigots in his party a new bogeyman:

“The enemy is inside the gates,” wrote Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who juxtaposed an image of the Sept. 11 terror attacks with a photo of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on X.

“Muslims don’t belong in American society,” wrote Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles, who called for their expulsion from the United States.

“We need more Islamophobia, not less,” wrote Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine. “Fear of Islam is rational.”

A Georgia state senator’s campaign video urged voters to “Keep Georgia sharia free.”

Republican leaders, far from condemning the rhetoric, revel in it.

At a moment when it appears that Republicans might be subject to — in President Obama’s memorable description of his own midterm losses — a shellacking come November, it would seem the party is getting desperate. And so it falls back on a tried-and-true playbook: Creating fear about non-white members of certain religions, backgrounds or ethnicities, or gay people or trans people, to help goose Republican voter turnout. It’s the “Southern strategy” updated for our times.

(Democrats, by contrast, are turned on by the thought of taxing billionaires.)

The idea that the country is being overrun or undermined by “others” is a tired but effective trope used by authoritarian governments all over the world. Or, in the case of the United States, a would-be authoritarian government.

The latest annual report from the Varieties of Democracy Institute at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg finds that Democratic backsliding is happening in about a quarter of the world’s countries, and is happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled “is unprecedented in modern history,” says the report, citing Trump’s “rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency.” For the first time in more than 50 years, the report says, the U.S. has lost its long-term status as a liberal democracy.

In fact, the report says, it took Trump only a year to accomplish what it took the democratically elected, authoritarian leaders of India (Narendra Modi), Hungary (Viktor Orbán) and Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) years to accomplish. (You can think of those as illiberal democracies — combo meals of democratically elected leaders who curtail civil liberties, ignore constitutional limits and undermine democratic institutions like the independent judiciary and free press. Sound familiar?)

Racial fearmongering has been used by politicians for centuries, but only in the last 30 years has the phenomenon been given a name: “replacement theory.”

In simple terms, replacement theory — a conspiracy theory, not a reality — describes the belief that white people lose out as people of color or other disadvantaged groups gain. In his new book, “Chain of Ideas: The Origins of Our Authoritarian Age,” historian Ibram X. Kendi, whose 2019 book, “How to Be an Antiracist,” was an international bestseller, links the current rise of so many autocratic leaders around the world to their embrace of replacement theory.

The concept rests on the idea, he writes, that “powerful elites are enabling peoples of color to steal the lives, livelihoods, cultures, electoral power and freedom of White people, who now need authoritarian protection.” (Echoes of “I alone can fix it.”)

I first became aware of this bizarre worldview back in 2017, when white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., chanted, “You will not replace us” and “Jews will not replace us” at the Unite the Right rally, as they protested the planned removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, from the University of Virginia.

The term “replacement theory” was brought forth in the early 2010s by a French white nationalist, Renaud Camus, and rests on a foundation as thin as a layer of pastry in a Napoleon.

In 1996, Camus, a writer and would-be politician, was in the south of France, writing a visitors guide for the Hérault region, whose most well known city is Montpellier. Visiting villages in the area, Camus said he noticed that “all these North African women with veils” had suddenly replaced the original inhabitants, and concluded that a great replacement (of white, French people) was underway. As Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote in a 2017 New Yorker profile of Camus, “He became obsessed with the diminishing ethnic purity of Western Europe.”

Kendi writes that while the region had indeed changed dramatically, Camus was wrong about why: “Its population had roughly doubled in the last half of the 20th century, driven largely by domestic migration from other parts of the country and retired people moving to the region.”

And bien sûr there were North African immigrants; after all, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria are all former French colonies. And yet, the African immigrants, while distinguished by their dress and skin color, were, writes Kendi, still “relatively rare in Hérault, no more than 4% of the total population.”

Replacement theory is, fundamentally, a neo-Nazi ideology. Kendi dubs it “the renovated House of Hitler.” In a sort of fill-in-the blank exercise, he contends that white Christians are the new Aryan race. Muslims, immigrants and queer and trans people are “the new Jew.” Globalist elites are running the show, instead of “international Jewry.” Deportation — or “remigration” — is the new “final solution.” And giant warehouses being built by Trump across our country right now to hold immigrant detainees “are the new concentration camp.”

This November, American voters have the opportunity to turn this tide, to reject the fearmongering, to embrace our roots as a nation of immigrants and kneecap the would-be dictator who is bent on wrecking democracy from his gilded palace on the Potomac.

Bluesky: @rabcarianThreads: @rabcarian

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

Republicans are deploying Islamophobia as a deliberate political strategy in response to anticipated midterm electoral losses, reviving a long-established playbook of racial fearmongering that has roots in the “Southern strategy.”[1] The timing coincides with diminished effectiveness of anti-immigrant rhetoric following border closures and high-profile deportation violence, creating a need for alternative scapegoats.[1]

Republicans are deploying Islamophobia as a deliberate political strategy in response to anticipated midterm electoral losses, reviving a long-established playbook of racial fearmongering that has roots in the “Southern strategy.”[1] The timing coincides with diminished effectiveness of anti-immigrant rhetoric following border closures and high-profile deportation violence, creating a need for alternative scapegoats.[1]

The election of New York City’s first Muslim mayor and the Trump administration’s military engagement with Iran have provided Republicans with a new focal point for creating fear about religious and ethnic “others.”[1] Statements characterizing Muslims as threats to American society represent an extension of replacement theory ideology—the false conspiracy theory that white people are being displaced—which Islamophobia scholar Ibram X. Kendi identifies as fundamentally neo-Nazi in character.[1]

The election of New York City’s first Muslim mayor and the Trump administration’s military engagement with Iran have provided Republicans with a new focal point for creating fear about religious and ethnic “others.”[1] Statements characterizing Muslims as threats to American society represent an extension of replacement theory ideology—the false conspiracy theory that white people are being displaced—which Islamophobia scholar Ibram X. Kendi identifies as fundamentally neo-Nazi in character.[1]

Republican leadership has abdicated its responsibility to condemn inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric, marking a stark departure from 2019 when House Republicans swiftly removed Rep. Steve King from committees for white nationalist comments.[1] This shift reflects what policy experts describe as a new political era within the Republican Party that “delights in provoking and offending and refuses to apologize.”[1]

Republican leadership has abdicated its responsibility to condemn inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric, marking a stark departure from 2019 when House Republicans swiftly removed Rep. Steve King from committees for white nationalist comments.[1] This shift reflects what policy experts describe as a new political era within the Republican Party that “delights in provoking and offending and refuses to apologize.”[1]

The broader pattern reflects unprecedented democratic backsliding in the United States, with scholars documenting that democratic erosion is occurring at alarming speed, driven by authoritarian concentration of power and reliance on fearmongering about marginalized groups.[1]

The broader pattern reflects unprecedented democratic backsliding in the United States, with scholars documenting that democratic erosion is occurring at alarming speed, driven by authoritarian concentration of power and reliance on fearmongering about marginalized groups.[1]

Different views on the topic

House Speaker Mike Johnson has framed Republican concerns as focused on opposition to Sharia law implementation in America rather than hostility toward Muslims as a people, arguing that “the demand to impose Sharia law in America is a serious problem” animates Republican commentary.[1][2] This framing distinguishes between criticism of a legal framework and prejudice against a religious group, with Johnson stating that the language used differs from his own but addresses a substantive policy concern.[1][2]

House Speaker Mike Johnson has framed Republican concerns as focused on opposition to Sharia law implementation in America rather than hostility toward Muslims as a people, arguing that “the demand to impose Sharia law in America is a serious problem” animates Republican commentary.[1][2] This framing distinguishes between criticism of a legal framework and prejudice against a religious group, with Johnson stating that the language used differs from his own but addresses a substantive policy concern.[1][2]

Republicans have established a “Sharia-Free America” caucus with 50 members, positioning their advocacy as constitutional protection rather than religious discrimination.[1] Supporters of this focus contend that concerns about legal pluralism and religious law’s relationship to American governance represent legitimate political debate.

Republicans have established a “Sharia-Free America” caucus with 50 members, positioning their advocacy as constitutional protection rather than religious discrimination.[1] Supporters of this focus contend that concerns about legal pluralism and religious law’s relationship to American governance represent legitimate political debate.

Some Republicans have defended individual statements on similar grounds, with political spending data showing over $10 million in advertisements emphasizing Sharia law concerns in recent election cycles.[1] Proponents argue this messaging addresses governance questions rather than targeting Muslims individually.

Some Republicans have defended individual statements on similar grounds, with political spending data showing over $10 million in advertisements emphasizing Sharia law concerns in recent election cycles.[1] Proponents argue this messaging addresses governance questions rather than targeting Muslims individually.

A minority of Republicans, including Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, have explicitly condemned anti-Muslim statements as “offensive and completely inappropriate,” emphasizing their own Muslim constituents and the constitutional protection of religious freedom.[1] This segment argues that broad generalizations about any religious group contradict American values and effective governing.

A minority of Republicans, including Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, have explicitly condemned anti-Muslim statements as “offensive and completely inappropriate,” emphasizing their own Muslim constituents and the constitutional protection of religious freedom.[1] This segment argues that broad generalizations about any religious group contradict American values and effective governing.

© Los Angeles Times