The Republican Party has a major problem on this hands. It begins with "Ron" and ends with "-ormfront.org."
In what started as a slow trickle with Strom Thurmond, Nixon's Southern Strategy, Jesse Helms, and Ronald Reagan's Southern Strategy, the Republican Party courted conservative Southern Democrats. It was politically expedient. Some would argue it was necessary for the continued survival of the Republican party; some would argue it was an inevitability following the Roosevelt-Roosevelt chain - Teddy pulled much of the Progressive wing out of the Republican party, and Franklin Deleno firmly planted a Progressive stamp on the Democratic party, and that left the Republicans with too narrow of a base of support to continue without reaching out to social conservatives.
But it happened. The Republicans positioned themselves in a political position where they became attractive to white nationalists; and ever since then, the national Republican party has had to police itself aggressively in order to prevent infiltration of the party machinery by white nationalists.
Five years ago, they faced another challenge: Ron Paul was running for president. Which he has continued to do pretty much to the present day, with a short vacation - three months at a time - during the gaps between the party convention and the general election. And Ron Paul's campaigns, with his background, his dog whistles, and his youth appeal at a time when Republicans desperately need to connect to the next generation, have provided a conduit for white nationalists into the party machinery. I would argue that the Republicans are by and large failing to police themselves; and are in great danger of being in service to white nationalists the way they have been in service to evangelicals.
A passionate minority coming to a larger group that struggles with having as many volunteers as they'd like, and struggles at reaching the larger population as well as they'd like to can come to exercise a disproportionate amount of power.
I've come to realize that the organized feminist movement - feminist lobbying groups, internet feminists, "professional feminists" who make their money producing feminist media for consumption, et cetera - has been having much the same problem. To be feminist does not and never has required that you hate men, or view women as superior to men.
But if you're misandrist, feminism is attractive, for the same reasons that the Republican party is attractive to white nationalists: They may not be fond of your real agenda, but they can advance policies in your interests. They have ideas you like. On the organizational level, feminist groups work for women's perceived interests - and only for women's perceived interests.
Feminists do criticize each other; but they have not effectively policed themselves. Possibly cannot; and even with the most extreme figures, such as Valerie Solanas, it's very difficult to effectively push forward the idea that they are not real feminists. Large numbers of feminists rallied to Solanas's defense, even as other feminists denounced her.
The only time feminists make a real effort to effectively police themselves is against dilution. The sort of policing feminism has done is against people like Warren Farrell - for trying to extend critical examination to the male gender role, and to address directly the harm done to men as men - and people like Sarah Palin, who disagree with key positions widely considered central to feminism by feminists [in particular, abortion rights].
Of the two, of course, it's harder to argue feminists have effectively excluded Palin from being called feminist; her right to identify herself as a feminist gets publicly defended, even as it stirs up controversy with the moment, and the defense is non-trivial even here on NSG. However, I would assert that she exercises very little control over the feminist movement.
The same is not true of the radicals. Robin Morgan led protests in favor of Valerie Solanas; and remained influential before and afterwards, most particular being editor-in-chief of Ms. Magazine [1989-1994]. There is no degree to which someone can be misandrist - not that I have observed - without remaining in the good graces of enough prominent feminists to make you considered "not feminist." The fact that reactionaries characterize any feminist as radical has not helped; it means that the criticism appropriately applied to extremists is one which rank-and-file feminists are used to hearing applied to moderates.
Today, the Republican party is in grave danger of being taken over entirely by radical elements. It perhaps already has been taken over entirely by radical elements; though, arguably, in the last two election cycles, the Republicans fielded the most nearly moderate presidential candidate out of the last four left in the running. [Paul, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain; Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul].
And today, the feminist movement has a problem that few self-identified feminists seem willing to acknowledge. It is not a novel problem; not a strange problem; not a unique problem. But it is a problem nonetheless.
