There is a difference between saying “I disagree with this policy” and saying “those people are the reason your country is falling apart.”
That distinction matters.
Political parties have always used fear. They have always warned voters about threats—foreign enemies, criminals, economic instability, political opponents. Republicans are certainly not the only American politicians who use emotionally charged rhetoric, and Democrats have their own history of turning political opponents into villains.
But over the past several years, something has become increasingly difficult to ignore in Republican messaging: some of the party's most prominent voices have repeatedly built political narratives around particular groups of people as threats to America.
Immigrants. Muslims. LGBTQ+ people. Transgender people. And, increasingly, people described as “radical,” “woke,” or otherwise culturally incompatible with a particular vision of America.
This isn't an argument that every Republican hates these people.
It is an argument about political messaging—what is said, how often it is said, who is targeted, and what happens when rhetoric becomes policy.
And when you look at the record, there is enough evidence to take the pattern seriously.
Start with immigration
Immigration is probably the clearest example.
There is nothing inherently hateful about wanting secure borders, enforcing immigration laws, limiting illegal immigration, or debating how many immigrants the United States should admit. Those are legitimate policy questions in a democracy.
The question is what happens when immigrants stop being presented as a policy challenge and start being presented as an invading force.
The Republican Party's 2024 platform did not merely promise stronger border enforcement. Its very first promise was to “SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION,” followed immediately by a promise to carry out “the largest deportation operation in American history.” The platform also described a “migrant crime epidemic” and called for ending what it characterized as an “Invasion” at the southern border.
That language matters because it changes the subject of the political conversation.
Instead of asking, How should America manage immigration?
the message becomes:
Who is invading America, and how do we stop them?
Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed that framing. During his 2024 campaign, he described undocumented immigrants in dehumanizing terms and claimed, without evidence, that migrants were “building an army” inside the United States to attack Americans.
This is not merely criticism of immigration policy.
It is threat construction.
There is an important distinction between saying, “Illegal immigration has increased and the government needs to address it,” and telling Americans that people arriving from other countries are essentially an invading army.
The first is a policy argument.
The second asks people to fear a population.
And fear is politically powerful because it turns a complicated policy question into something emotionally simple: us versus them.
Then there is the question of Muslims
The Republican Party's relationship with Muslim Americans is more complicated than simply calling the party anti-Muslim.
There are Republicans who have defended Muslims and religious freedom. There are Muslim Republicans. There are conservatives who believe Muslims are an important part of the American coalition.
That matters because the argument isn't that every Republican shares anti-Muslim views.
But Donald Trump's political rise included some of the most consequential anti-Muslim rhetoric in modern presidential politics. In 2015, he called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. His administration subsequently implemented travel restrictions affecting several predominantly Muslim countries.
The important question isn't only what happened in 2017. It is what happened to the political vocabulary surrounding Islam afterward.
In Texas, that vocabulary has become particularly visible in 2026. Republican candidates have made opposition to Islam and “Sharia law” a prominent part of some campaigns. One Republican attorney general candidate's television ad warned that Muslims were being “imported” into the country and claimed they wanted their own cities in Texas to impose Sharia law.
Gov. Greg Abbott himself has repeatedly made opposition to Sharia law a political priority. In January, he declared that Texas would do “everything possible” to ensure Sharia law had “no presence in Texas whatsoever.”
But here is where we should pause.
What actual mechanism exists for Muslims to replace American law with Sharia law?
Muslim Americans are subject to the same Constitution and laws as everyone else. A Muslim judge does not acquire the authority to replace American law with Islamic law. A Muslim elected official does not gain religious authority over the legal system simply because he or she is Muslim.
So when politicians repeatedly warn that America must be protected from “Sharia law,” the factual question should be straightforward:
What actual proposal are we talking about?
Because if there isn't one, then the political message is no longer primarily about stopping a concrete legislative proposal. It is about making people imagine one.
That is how an out-group narrative works.
You don't necessarily have to prove that the threat exists.
You simply have to convince people that it could.
The problem keeps getting smaller—and the rhetoric gets louder
And this is where the recent fight over Muslim ablution facilities at Texas airports becomes almost surreal.
Wudu, or ablution, is simply the ritual washing Muslims perform before prayer.
George Bush Intercontinental Airport has an ablution facility. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport has had an existing station since 2019 and had been considering additional facilities. The Houston facility is available to travelers generally, and Houston Mayor John Whitmire has said it was funded through fees paid by international airlines rather than taxpayer money.
Yet in August 2026, Abbott turned the issue into a state and federal funding controversy.
He directed a review of state grants to airport entities, referred DFW and IAH to the U.S. Department of Transportation for investigation, and warned that state grants could potentially be revoked or future grants denied over what he characterized as religious discrimination.
DFW subsequently canceled plans for an additional ablution facility, saying the project would not deliver its anticipated operational benefits.
Think about what the political controversy actually concerns:
A place where Muslim travelers can wash before praying.
That's it.
And that is precisely why the example is so revealing.
The issue isn't whether government should favor one religion over another. It shouldn't.
The question is whether providing an accommodation that primarily serves one religious population constitutes religious favoritism simply because that population is the primary user.
We don't generally consider a wheelchair ramp to be government endorsement of disability.
We don't consider a nursing room government endorsement of parenthood.
We don't consider a kosher or halal food option government endorsement of Judaism or Islam.
Accommodation is not endorsement.
Yet a facility designed to accommodate a Muslim religious practice has been transformed into evidence of an alleged religious threat.
The political energy devoted to the issue is wildly disproportionate to the actual activity taking place.
People are washing their feet.
And somehow that has become a battle over whether Islam is taking over Texas.
That should make us stop and ask what, exactly, we are being encouraged to fear.
Then there is “no men in women's sports”
The same rhetorical construction appears in the now ubiquitous Republican slogan:
“No men in women's sports.”
There is a legitimate public-policy debate here.
People can disagree about transgender participation in athletics. They can debate competitive fairness, eligibility rules, hormone levels, age categories and how individual sports should regulate participation.
But notice what happens when the slogan becomes detached from the actual policy question.
It doesn't say:
Let's establish evidence-based eligibility standards for transgender athletes.
It says:
No men in women's sports.
The Republican Party made that language part of its official 2024 platform, promising to “keep men out of women's sports” while also promising to cut federal funding for schools promoting what it called “radical gender ideology.”
Again, those are legitimate policy positions that voters are free to support or oppose.
But political messaging can do something policy documents cannot: it can transform a complicated issue involving a relatively small population into a visceral threat.
It becomes men invading women's spaces.
It becomes children being endangered.
It becomes an attack on the family.
It becomes an existential cultural battle.
And when that happens repeatedly, a person who has never met a transgender athlete can nevertheless come to associate transgender people with danger.
That's the power of political framing.
Find a group that many voters don't personally know.
Define the group as a threat.
Repeat the threat until the group becomes synonymous with the threat.
Then offer yourself as the person who will protect everyone from it.
LGBTQ+ Americans became another political battlefield
The transgender debate exists within a broader political fight over LGBTQ+ Americans.
There are legitimate disagreements surrounding gender identity, parental rights, school policies, medical care for minors and religious liberty.
But again, the question is not whether those disagreements are legitimate.
The question is how the people at the center of those disagreements are characterized.
The Republican platform describes gender-related policies as “radical gender ideology,” calls for keeping men out of women's sports, and promises to prevent schools from promoting gender transition.
Congressional Republicans have also introduced legislation that goes well beyond athletics. The proposed Protect Children's Innocence Act, for example, sought to criminalize certain gender-affirming care for minors and impose additional consequences involving federal funding and immigration.
The existence of such legislation does not prove that its supporters hate transgender people.
But it demonstrates something much more concrete:
Transgender identity has become a significant target of Republican political action.
And that distinction matters.
We should be able to examine the political consequences without pretending we can see inside someone's heart.
And then came Abdul El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani
This may be one of the most revealing developments because it takes the conversation out of abstract policy and puts it directly onto Muslim Americans participating in American democracy.
In August 2026, Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim nominated by the Democratic Party for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan. Rather than simply debating his record and political positions, some Republican attacks quickly focused on his Muslim identity and even his name.
Republican candidate Mike Rogers falsely claimed that El-Sayed believed America deserved the September 11 attacks; FactCheck.org found no evidence for the claim and noted that El-Sayed had said the attacks were not justified.
Then came an even more striking example.
Rep. Nancy Mace wrote that “every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse” and a threat to national security and the republic.
That is no longer an argument about El-Sayed's healthcare policies, taxes, policing, foreign policy or political philosophy.
It is an argument about whether Muslim identity itself can be treated as evidence of disloyalty.
And that distinction is crucial.
Imagine if someone said:
“Every Christian holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a threat to the republic.”
Most Americans would immediately recognize the problem with generalizing about an entire religion that way.
The same standard should apply to Muslims.
Criticize El-Sayed's politics.
Challenge his positions.
Examine his record.
But don't make his religion evidence of guilt.
The same thing happened with Zohran Mamdani.
Republicans have every right to oppose Mamdani's socialism, housing policies, tax proposals, foreign-policy positions or anything else in his political agenda.
But when his election was characterized as evidence that he was “bringing SHARIA LAW to America,” the argument changed. PolitiFact rated that claim “Pants on Fire,” noting that Mamdani had expressed no intention of implementing Sharia law in New York City.
The pattern becomes difficult to miss:
The argument keeps moving from what people believe politically to what people supposedly are.
And once someone's religion, sexuality, gender identity, immigration status or cultural background becomes the evidence against them, we have crossed an important line.
The pattern isn't simply “Republicans hate minorities”
That would actually be too simplistic.
And if the goal is to write something fact-based, we shouldn't make that claim.
Millions of Republican voters don't fit that description.
Some Republicans are immigrants. Some are Muslim. Some are LGBTQ+. Some have LGBTQ+ children. Some strongly support legal immigration. Some simply prioritize taxes, abortion, gun rights, national security or economic policy over cultural issues.
There are even Republican lawmakers who have pushed back against anti-Muslim rhetoric. In March, The Washington Post reported that several Republican senators rejected the idea that Muslims are enemies or don't belong in America, even as others declined to criticize colleagues making those claims.
That matters.
It means we shouldn't turn this into a caricature of an entire political party.
The stronger argument is more precise:
Prominent Republican political messaging has increasingly relied on portraying certain populations as threats, and that rhetoric has frequently been accompanied by policies or political actions specifically directed at those populations.
That is something we can document.
And it is more troubling precisely because it doesn't require us to assume what millions of people believe.
We can simply look at what powerful people are saying.
Fear works because it gives complicated problems a face
There is something psychologically powerful about identifying an enemy.
Inflation is complicated.
Housing costs are complicated.
Healthcare is complicated.
Crime is complicated.
Immigration is complicated.
Cultural change is complicated.
But “they are doing this to you” is simple.
It gives people somewhere to direct their anger.
And that isn't unique to Republicans. Democrats have their own versions of political villain-making. Politicians across the ideological spectrum can reduce complicated problems to villains and victims.
But the particular targets and themes of contemporary Republican messaging deserve scrutiny because of how frequently they intersect with race, nationality, religion, sexuality and gender identity.
Look at the progression.
Immigrants become an “invasion.”
Migrants become criminals.
Muslims become potential extremists.
Muslim politicians become potential Trojan horses.
A Muslim traveler washing before prayer becomes evidence of religious favoritism.
Transgender people become threats to women and children.
LGBTQ+ inclusion becomes “radical ideology.”
Political opponents become “the enemy within.”
The individual issues aren't identical.
And the policies aren't automatically illegitimate because Republicans support them.
But the rhetorical structure is remarkably similar:
Identify a group. Associate the group with a threat. Make the threat feel immediate. Present yourself as the protector.
That's what I think is really happening when people say they feel that Republican messaging has become increasingly focused on “hating people.”
The more precise observation is that a significant strain of contemporary Republican politics has made the identity of the perceived enemy an increasingly important part of the political message.
And once that happens, almost anything can become evidence of the threat.
A person crossing a border.
A person praying in an airport.
A person saying inshallah.
A Muslim running for Senate.
A Muslim becoming mayor.
A transgender teenager playing a sport.
A school acknowledging that LGBTQ+ students exist.
The question stops being, What is this person actually doing?
It becomes:
What does this person represent?
And that's where “hate” becomes an important word
I don't think we should casually label every harsh political position as hatred.
Wanting immigration enforcement isn't hatred of immigrants.
Opposing gender-affirming care for minors isn't automatically hatred of transgender people.
Supporting restrictions on immigration from particular countries isn't automatically hatred of Muslims.
Opposing LGBTQ+ instruction in schools isn't automatically hatred of LGBTQ+ people.
People are entitled to hold conservative positions on all of those questions.
But dehumanization is different from disagreement.
When an entire population is repeatedly described as an invasion, a disease, a threat, criminals, predators, garbage, or something fundamentally incompatible with the nation, we are no longer simply discussing policy.
We are talking about how human beings are being characterized.
And that is where rhetoric deserves scrutiny.
Because history has repeatedly shown us that language matters.
Before people can be treated as outsiders, they have to be imagined as outsiders.
Before a group can be politically marginalized, people have to become comfortable with the idea that the group is somehow less deserving of belonging.
That doesn't mean every politician using inflammatory language is consciously trying to produce some catastrophic historical outcome.
It means we should understand the power of the language we normalize.
The question we should actually be asking
The most important question isn't:
“Are Republicans hateful?”
That's too broad to be useful.
The better question is:
> What happens to a democracy when political success increasingly depends on convincing citizens that another group of Americans—or people living among them—is the source of their fear, anger and decline?
Because once politics becomes a contest over which group deserves blame, there is always another group waiting to be blamed.
Today it may be immigrants.
Tomorrow Muslims.
Then transgender people.
Then LGBTQ+ people.
Then political opponents.
And eventually, the definition of the “real American” can become so narrow that millions of actual Americans find themselves on the outside looking in.
That's why we should pay attention not only to what politicians promise to do, but to how they teach us to think about the people they promise to do it to.
A country can have fierce disagreements about borders, gender, religion, crime, schools and culture.
It should.
That's democracy.
We should be able to argue about immigration without calling immigrants an invading army.
We should be able to debate transgender participation in sports without treating transgender people as a civilization-ending threat.
We should be able to debate religious accommodation without pretending that a Muslim washing before prayer is evidence that Sharia law is taking over America.
We should be able to oppose a Muslim politician's policies without treating his religion or his name as evidence of disloyalty.
And we should be able to criticize Democrats just as vigorously.
That is what political disagreement is supposed to look like.
Because there is a line between saying:
“I disagree with you.”
and saying:
“You are the reason America is broken.”
The first creates political disagreement.
The second creates an enemy.
And when creating enemies becomes a reliable way to win elections, the question isn't simply whether the rhetoric is effective.
The question is what it is doing to us.
So what do we do about it?
We start by refusing to accept the premise that our neighbors have to be frightening for our politics to make sense.
We ask for evidence.
What exactly is the threat?
What law is actually being proposed?
What problem are we actually solving?
How large is the problem?
How often does it actually happen?
Who is being affected?
What does the data show?
And perhaps most importantly:
Would we describe the behavior the same way if the people involved belonged to a different religion, race, sexuality or political party?
We need to stop allowing slogans to substitute for evidence.
We need to challenge politicians—including politicians we support—when they turn entire populations into villains.
We need to distinguish between criticizing an ideology and demonizing the people who hold it.
And we need to remember that democracy doesn't require us to like one another.
It requires us to recognize one another as human beings who belong here.
Because the easiest way to unite people isn't always to give them something to believe in.
Sometimes, it's to give them someone to fear.
Don't let anyone convince you that your neighbor has to become your enemy before your country can become great.
Ask questions. Check the claims. Look past the slogan. Listen for the language of threat. And when you see an entire group of people being turned into a political scapegoat, say something.
Because democracy isn't protected only at the ballot box.
It is protected every time ordinary people refuse to let fear decide **who gets to belong.**
No comments:
Post a Comment