Ever since controversial right-wing Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) were publicly linked to plans for an "America First Caucus" organized around fealty to "Anglo-Saxon political traditions," Republicans have scurried away from the idea.
But, as determined as those distancing efforts have been, this story illustrates something unpleasant about how the boundaries of what's considered acceptable discourse can get slowly pushed further afield by the cycle of controversy and backlash.
Greene and Gosar both disavowed any knowledge of the plan, which includes explicitly nativist and white nationalist ideas. That came after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) flatly decried its "nativist dog whistles."
But this came right after a leading right-wing TV personality pushed the envelope dramatically with some nativist dog whistles of his own.
Recently Tucker Carlson doubled down on his claim that Democrats want more immigration because they hope to replace native-born U.S. voters with "more obedient voters from the Third World."
Carlson condemned the addition of immigrant voters to the polity as an inherently bad thing. He said in various ways that local culture all over America is succumbing under a tide of migration, with some states becoming "unrecognizable."
These two controversies occupy different places on the spectrum of despicable nativist and white nationalist viewpoints. But they are related. With the "Anglo-Saxon traditions" controversy drawing more attention, relative to that we're seeing versions of Carlson's viewpoint edging into the realm of Republican respectability.
During a previous nativist craze, Adam Serwer notes in the Atlantic, the "Anglo-Saxon" badge was used to denote good whites of northern European descent, as distinct from bad whites of southern and eastern European descent, not to mention other inferior whites "who had names such as, well, McCarthy."
This undergirded nativist sentiment in the 19th and early 20th centuries. One leading proponent of these ideas at the time summed up prevailing theories by claiming non-Anglo- Saxons are not fit for "self-care and self-government."
Carlson's claim that Democrats want to replace U.S. native voters with "more obedient voters from the Third World" traffics in this. The insinuation is that Democrats want to import these voters precisely because they're pliable and can be manipulated into voting for Democrats regardless of their own interests. That's close to claiming they're incapable of "self-rule."
Almost no Republican lawmaker would endorse this position. But note that several very prominent Republicans have crept right up to this ugly line.
Now we're in the middle of a big controversy over the idea of a House caucus expressly organized around nativist ideals. But two prominent Republicans have voiced support for a position that's not far from its underlying ideology, and it isn't seen as particularly controversial.