By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent actions by U.S. Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino, wearing a uniform reminiscent of Nazi Germany, highlight a disturbing trend within the Republican party. This includes ICE lawyers linked to white supremacist accounts, Young Republicans discussing Hitler favorably, and federal agencies employing neo-Nazi anthems and slogans. Donald Trump’s admiration for Hitler’s generals and the use of rhetoric echoing neo-Nazi literature further underscore these concerns. The article argues that while the Republican party historically combatted far-right extremism, it has become a safe space for such ideologies, a shift attributed to electoral expediency, racial pandering, and the weakening of institutions, ultimately leading to the normalization of bigotry and hate.
Read the original article here
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the uncomfortable truth: the Republican Party seems to have a significant problem with Nazism. The shift in rhetoric and imagery has been palpable, moving from fringe elements to what appears to be a more mainstream acceptance.
This isn’t a sudden development, but rather a slow creep that has been building momentum. Some observers note that the Republican Party has been grappling with this issue for years, perhaps even decades. What was once considered an extreme fringe element has, for many, become integrated into the party’s core.
The observation that the party has gone from questioning why they are called Nazis to acknowledging the presence of too many within their ranks is a stark indicator of this perceived shift. It suggests a turning point where the accusations have become too frequent and too widespread to dismiss.
The argument is made that by covering for or ignoring individuals and groups with Nazi sympathies, the party has inadvertently fostered an environment where such ideologies can flourish. This has led to a generation of men being drawn into right-wing ideologies that echo problematic historical movements.
Recent events have only amplified these concerns. There are reports of an ICE lawyer with ties to white-supremacist accounts praising Hitler, and members of the national Young Republicans organization being caught expressing admiration for Hitler in a group chat. Even federal agencies are reportedly using phrasing associated with Nazi Germany.
Looking back, some recall the Republican Party of the past as a more moderate institution. In 1979, for example, the party was seen as a moderate force. Even in the 1990s, while extremism was present among constituents, the leadership of the party was viewed as reassuringly moderate, exemplified by figures like George H. W. Bush.
However, the landscape began to change. The populist challenge of Pat Buchanan in 1992 and the subsequent rise of Newt Gingrich, who brought a culture war mentality into the House speakership, marked significant shifts. Later nominees like John McCain and Mitt Romney seemed to represent a more traditional, moderate coalition that attracted many members.
The emergence of the Tea Party movement after McCain’s loss to Obama, and the subsequent rise of Donald Trump with his promotion of the “birther” lie, are seen as further catalysts. Critics suggest that the “Trump movement” and the rise of a “new American Nazism” were almost inevitable given the weakening of the GOP as an institution, which made it susceptible to being “hijacked by an aspiring dictator.”
Leaders who warned against Trump in 2016 are criticized for ultimately abandoning conservative principles to protect their positions. This “eager amorality” is seen as having allowed extreme elements to exploit the GOP as a vehicle for bigotry and rage.
The core of the issue, as articulated by some, is that if a party is “fine with some Nazis at your party, you are now at a Nazi party.” This perspective frames the acceptance of such elements, however small, as fundamentally transforming the identity of the party itself. It’s likened to owning a bar that allows Nazis in; it becomes a “Nazi bar.”
The idea that the “Overton window has shifted so far that we are now normalizing actual fascists” is a potent observation. This suggests that what was once considered beyond the pale has now become an acceptable, or at least tolerated, part of the political discourse. History, it’s argued, will not look kindly on this normalization.
There’s a recurring theme that for those within the party, it’s not viewed as a problem, but rather as a “feature.” This implies a deliberate embrace or acceptance of these ideologies, rather than an accidental infiltration. The analogy of a “shit sandwich” is used: even a small amount of “shit” makes the entire sandwich a “shit sandwich,” regardless of the ratio.
The notion that the Republican Party has a “Nazi problem” is, for many, a long-standing realization. Some believe the party had this problem a decade ago, and by 2020, it had purged non-Nazi elements. The current state is seen not as a problem, but as the party’s evolved identity.
The argument that “the only problem the Republicans see is that they’re getting called out on it” suggests a lack of genuine introspection or effort to address the issue. The absence of any meaningful action beyond responding to criticism points to a deeper, more ingrained acceptance.
When a significant portion of voters support candidates who are described as “racist, fascist, sexist,” and when these elements are seen as a “feature” rather than a bug, it leads to the conclusion that “Republicans are OK with white supremacists.” This is particularly concerning when historical parallels to Nazi Germany, such as the need to identify a segment of society to blame, are drawn.
The observation that the GOP has Spanish speakers, while Hitler’s Nazis had Jews, highlights a perceived continuation of the tactic of scapegoating. This is particularly relevant given statements by figures like Lindsey Graham, who placed himself in the “[Hitler sucks wing of the Republican Party](https://newrepublic.com/post/202606/lindsey-graham-republican-party-nick-fuentes-ties),” leaving many to wonder which wing of the party is actually embracing more problematic ideologies.
The idea that “Nazis have a Republican problem” or that the “Nazi party has a naming problem” flips the narrative, suggesting that the Republican Party’s embrace of these ideologies is so strong that it’s almost indistinguishable from Nazism itself. The purging of figures like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney is cited as evidence that these individuals were deemed “not Nazi enough for the party.”
Ultimately, the perspective presented is that the Republican Party has become the “Nazi Party.” It’s argued that they willingly courted the far right, and subsequently, far-right ideologies have consumed the party. The corruption and damage done to the country are seen as a direct consequence of their own actions.
The assertion that “the Republican Party is the Nazi Party” is a strong conclusion, born from the observation that they “openly embrace Nazi and white supremacist ideology and political tactics.” This is described as their “brand (MAGA),” and critically, it’s suggested that the “voting majority of Americans support the GOP’s brand of white supremacy.” This final point raises the unsettling possibility that this is not just a problem for the party, but a reflection of a broader societal acceptance of these harmful ideologies.