Donald Trumps presidential campaign bludgeoned modern norms about the acceptability of racism. The candidate proposed a religious test for immigrants, and called a federal judge unfit on the grounds of his heritage. Trump could have decided to put the racial demagoguery of the campaign behind him, and it could have been remembered as a divisive ploy to win that did not define his administration, like George Bushs manipulation of white racial panic to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But Trump, perhaps predictably, is making a different choice. His early staffing choices are redefining the boundaries of acceptable racial discourse in Republican politics.
Michael Flynn, Trumps new national security adviser, would be disqualified from a normal administration on multiple grounds. He is paid by authoritarian regimes in Turkey and Russia, as well as Russias propaganda apparatus. Multiple figures who worked with him in the military describe him as unhinged, a highly negative quality for a primary foreign-policy adviser.
The singular belief that lies at the core of Flynns worldview is indiscriminate hatred of Islam. George W. Bushs administration took pains to distinguish terrorists who use Islam to justify murder from the peaceful majority. Since then, most Republicans have adopted the irresponsible talking point that it is essential to use the words radical Islam rather than phrasing calculated to win over Muslim moderates. Flynn takes this reasoning several steps further. He openly endorses indiscriminate fear of the entire religion:
Jeff Sessions, Trumps new attorney general, originally had the political profile of a white reactionary Alabama politician in the Old South mode. The Senate rejected his bid for a federal judgeship in 1986 over a series of racist remarks hed made, some of which he confirmed. Sessions called the NAACP un-American and accused it of forcing civil rights down the throats of people, and he allegedly called a black lawyer boy and warned him to be careful how he addressed white people.