Marjorie Taylor Greene, "America First," and dog whistles

Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman infamous for mocking survivors of the Parkland school shooting, has scrapped her plans to launch an “America First” caucus. The caucus’ policy platform made a lot of dubious assertions, such as that “recent election results” were the product of “manipulated” voting machines and widespread fraud. Even former president George W. Bush trashed the America First platform, calling it a shortcut to irrelevance.

But the part that stood out most to me is America First’s claim that immigrants undermine America’s “political unity,” which includes respect for our “uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions.”

“Anglo-Saxon culture” is a loaded term, often bandied about by people who couldn’t identify either an “Anglo” or a “Saxon.” If by "Anglo-Saxon political traditions," they mean "British political traditions," which ones? King Henry VIII and his six wives? Maybe Bloody Mary? That guy who was the villain in Robin Hood? England has a history of corrupt and power-mad monarchs brutally killing their detractors. That's why the colonists fought a war to overthrow British rule and outlined the King’s various abuses in America's founding documents.

We all know what the people touting “Anglo-Saxon tradition” really mean: America was founded by people from Northeast Europe, particularly from Britain. Those people were culturally superior, especially compared to the mélange of immigrants that followed. Claiming “Anglo-Saxons” are culturally superior is one step away from asserting they are genetically superior. While the America First Caucus’ policy platform doesn’t explicitly go there, it’s implied.

The notion of cultural and genetic superiority is not only ugly, it’s flawed. For starters, proponents have short memories when it comes to cultural history. As recently as 2,000 years ago—the blink of an eye in terms of human evolution—England was a cultural backwater. When Roman soldiers arrived, they didn’t discover an advanced society running on those revered Anglo-Saxon ideals. Instead, they found a bunch of tatted-up tribesmen running around in loincloths and living in mud huts. (Okay, technically they lived in hillforts—which are little more than huts built on a hill for protection.) Not only were the ancient British covered in tribal markings that featured a lot of serpents, but they also had a freaky cultural habit of hissing at strangers like snakes.

The people to the North, in modern Scotland, were so savage that the Romans quickly abandoned the idea of governing them, and instead built Hadrian's Wall to pen them in the North. They derisively referred to these people as “Picts”—a Latin term meaning “painted,” or tattooed. The Picts frustrated the Romans because they refused to respect the rules of civilized warfare, preferring primitive forms of fighting. They were also notorious for trying to bite off their enemies’ ears and fingers. Is that what Marjorie Taylor Greene is talking about when it comes to "Anglo-Saxon tradition"? Let’s hope not.

People who believe in the genetic and cultural superiority of certain groups pretend that their views are based in cold, hard scientific facts—but they’re not. In fact, their claims about genetics tend to fluctuate with their political needs. The common wisdom among white nationalists is often wildly inconsistent with what they said last month, last year, or even last century. Defenders of slavery used the alleged genetic inferiority of sub-Saharan Africans as a last-ditch excuse to keep them enslaved. But back when the slave trade was just getting started, they’d actually targeted Africans for their inherently superior traits: they were genetically resistant to malaria, which meant better survival odds in the swampy American South. West Africans had knowledge of crops that European settlers had tried, and failed, to cultivate, such as indigo. They were also favored for their stoic, even-tempered demeanors, which made them less likely to rebel and kill their masters.

Compare that to modern stereotypes of African-Americans as violent and prone to criminality, and ask yourself if it makes any sense.

We’ve worried about the diluting effect of other cultures on “Anglo-Saxon tradition” before. In the early 1900s, nativists issued dire warnings about the flood of low-IQ “Latin” people arriving from Southern Europe. (Apparently, back in the day, “Latin” was a race.) They were very worried about Italians, especially dark-skinned Sicilians, spreading their inferior genes and culture throughout America. Italians were believed to have astoundingly low IQs, averaging only about 75 points.

Of course, at the very same time, universities were teaching the ancient wisdom of Roman and Greek philosophers—with no sense of irony whatsoever. And anyway, modern Italy is now ranked the smartest nation in Europe, with an average IQ of 102. This rapid turnaround makes me wonder where turn-of-the-century nationalists got those numbers. Remember, claims about genetics and inherent traits fluctuate with the claimant’s immediate political needs. They don’t have to be consistent—or factual.

For now, the America First Caucus is dead in the water. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy rightly pointed out the group’s policy platform is full of “nativist dog whistles.” America has seen this agenda before, and we’re not so easily fooled this time.