Outward Prejudices – February 9, 2026

For the purposes of this conversation, let us start by blurring the lines for just a bit between prejudices and discriminations. It is the difference between internal beliefs and feelings against the outward actions of unfair treatments, judgements, gross generalizations, and other actions taken. Blend that for a minute.

Later in the conversation we can get into specifics, perhaps one or the other, but the general interest here is talking about leaders allowing more and more of their own prejudices to come to the surface. In both subtle hints up to the most obvious fashions. In some ways mainstream media is talking about this, bringing in examples from social media and so forth, but an argument could be made that challenge is weak.

One possible implication is a weakening of social norms, regression from a lack of challenge, taking us decades in reverse.

Just this past Friday, Trump posted a video on Truth Social depicting former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. The argument made from supporters that it was really about the rigged 2020 election and then some sort of jungle theme on who was king. But, in the end a statement was made that was not quite what Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and others claimed it was.

The video ended up taken down, with Trump refusing to apologize for it saying “I didn’t make a mistake” even though also claiming he was unaware of the racist imagery at the end of the clip. “Of course” he condemns that racist portion, as if that matters.

This is not some random event.

In the past Trump has referred to illegal immigrants in the context of “poisoning the blood of our country” that has historical ties to rhetoric associated with Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party in pre WWII Germany. Other TruthSocial posts include “animals” and “monsters” referring to the same group. “Invasion” and “dumping ground” for other nations suggesting much of immigration is foreign government sponsored.

The conversation point being, we have returned to a time where a sitting President has become all too comfortable suggesting very terrible things, and all too often, usually with prejudiced and racist undertones. The application of negative themes applied to the whole. Of just about anyone not white.

Initial question – How is this even remotely acceptable?

Rhetorical, obviously, sort of.

Even Republicans that condemn the comment, they are still likely to continue to support and defend their President. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) or Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) have no real reason to carry criticism of Trump’s post supporting Trump’s other actions and wants out of Congress.

And as outraged as Congressional Democrats are, understandably, what is not really happening is behavioral change by a sitting President.

The idea of demonizing an entire demographic in the most gross generalization way is not new. And this is with a President that was successful in 2024 at chipping into the very demographics he has a prejudices against.

Even if you subscribe to the idea that all of this is a complete lack of impulse control and clear political third rail 101 mentality we are still talking about a twice elected President who has pulled off one of the greatest party establishment replacements in the modern era.

Just recently Super Bowl LX ended up in the books with the Seattle Seahawk besting the New England Patriots, congrats for one hell of a defensive fight. It is a certainty that we will see plenty from both teams for next year’s season. With that we saw the halftime show become its own political mess. For the purposes of this conversation, right down lines of prejudices.

The NFL deciding to go with Bad Bunny, Puerto Rican, and have a halftime show where the music was predominately not in English apparently drew enough criticism from and motivation for conservatives to host an alternative. Their own political statement on Bad Bunny being contrary to “patriotism” where the show would not do justice for “faith, family, and freedom.” Ultimately at some point the idea of “real America” became a selling point for this alternative hosted by Turning Point USA.

Do we really need to mention that Puerto Rico is officially part of the US as an unincorporated territory meaning anyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen?

Apparently, “traditional American culture” means turning to the likes of Kid Rock and Brantley Gilbert. Also in the mix was a tribute to Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, assassinated September last year at Utah Valley University. A goal of his widow Erika Kirk was hosting the alternative but the implication is we are right back to a renewed culture war on what is and is not American.

So much for multiculturalism… at least as far as ole ‘R and ‘D are concerned.

Early estimates say Bad Bunny’s show was reported to be the most watched halftime show in history with as much as 142 million viewers, shattering the old record of 133 million for Kendrick Lamar’s halftime show in 2025.

The “traditional American” alternative pulled in over 6 million viewers with another 25 million or so after the Superbowl.

Success or failure, up to interpretation by the political spin machines, but a potential conclusion to ponder is we might be seeing a slightly different version of identity politics adopted by the MAGA Republican Party.

Turns out Bad Bunny saying “God Bless America,” then listing out dozens of nations South America to North America with plenty in between was just not American enough for Republicans.

What does all this mean for the current political landscape?

Complicated question and complicated answer.

We might be at difficult conundrum to sort out. The idea that “patriotism, faith, family, and freedom” is now a conservative litmus test, meaning an interpretation of “traditional America” as characterized by one culture, by looking backwards, and using tones of prejudices and discriminations. One of those tones being majority over minority, right back to Jim Crow thinking.

Inclusion means being in agreement with one view of culture even if that means shedding elements of the culture you know in order to fit in with an ideology of looking at a nation in the single view sense. That then aligns to being a vital and identifiable component of their America.

But, any minority cultural becomes viewed as anti-social and anti-America therefor… secondary citizen consideration, perhaps removal?

That ideology also has similarity to pre WWII Germany. Multiculturalism always was and always will be an enemy to social and economic controls, one answer to that is to deploy fascism. Parallels are there.

Wait, are Republicans all fascists?

Definitely not all of them, it could be as much as the overwhelming majority of Republicans down to just about independents that voted for Republicans could be turned away. Polling suggests this.

The possible lesson though for today’s liberalism is to review their own attacks on multiculturalism, arguably identifying elements of a culture that is persistent negative. A good argument could be made that cancel culture, anyone saying anything remotely offensive across a host of subjects, is also not very welcome in an alternate America aligning to today’s more liberal views.

Which is to say, the distance between prevailing views from the Democratic Party from that of the Republican Party on society and cultural norms is that much more great. Even more in the pool of alienated from both views. Perhaps more than the polls suggest when simply asking about party and/or lean affiliations.

The potential consequence from all this is the further empowerment of all the wrong people, to make all the wrong suggestions, in the determination of who has and passed litmus test guarded social norms and views.

At least from a standpoint of political majority at that time setting the test and the tones, when in the minority it is reduced to angry grumbling.

An awkward realization may be forming here on authoritarian liberalism empowering authoritarian conservatism. This sort of back and forth of majority and minority political status on the hill. This recent round allowing the likes of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller to be those sources of who is in their version of America. Agree or be a “traitor” as Trump would put it.

Okay, explain multiculturalism

Yearbook answer – Multiculturalism is a social and political doctrine that encourages a diverse cultural, with various ethnic and racial groups, to all coexist within a single society while maintaining their unique identities.

Real answer – Multiculturalism is an idea that encourages a diverse culture, with various ethnic and racial groups, to all coexist within a single society and economy, maintaining their unique identities, all without a single culture in that society trying to determine ranking or superiority over the others.

The only real difference in “Yearbook” and “Real” is the former implies something that is more direct in the latter, being said for the purposes of being direct, for the purpose of a conversation on when prejudices become policy. When thought becomes action. The only plausible argument to the contrary is the majority population demanding from representation no advance on a group telling everyone else what is “America” and more importantly what is not.

What can we do?

Demands from who is leading the nation is as good of a start as any, the idea of telling leadership that on a long enough timeline nationalism as an ideology tends to fail and the division caused by trying it ends up with unneeded rhetoric leading to likely violence.

But going deeper, both mainstream Democrats and Republicans have all but ignored that all social issues are generally addressed with education. The idea of ranking people or culture in any regard, intentions to isolate or “cancel” people from society, tends to be breeding grounds for future hatred. Simply put, no one goes away quietly despite the best argument from FoxNews or someone on ABC or CNN.

An idea to consider is that intentions to educate and embrace, with empathy all along the way, tends to be passed down from generation to generation. An attitude of inclusion. Because the alternative has the exact same habit, handing down prejudice and hatred of any type.

The consequence is rejecting identity politics in all of its forms. If it seems like a good idea, some ends justify the means argument, the net result is likely still very negative and even more likely violent.

What is in development, not outwardly spoken about, is the development of competing analytic frameworks for progress. Contrary to intention also creating new layers of social and economic fragmentation. More political clubs, with more exclusive membership, and an increasingly complex litmus test to guard it all from everyone else.

And with that is holding leaders accountable for participation in this, looking at statements made and policy objectives hinted at as either unifying or ultimately dividing. For the latter we are no more safer, and no more advanced.

On the point of unity, it is not herculean for some event hosted by Republicans or Democrats will bring out the crowds. Engage in the rhetoric of “anti-American cancel cultural liberals” or “fascist Nazi Republicans,” then sit back and see them enjoy the cheers of an audience made up of ignorance.

The challenge is encouraging building bridges, challenge the conventional wisdom of division oriented politics, as that of their supporting cast of media commentary all to happy to mouthpiece the rhetoric. And all of it departs from any action towards cultural neutrality.

You may even have an answer already to the implied question on why within the political spheres of Republicans and Democrats that multiculturalism is already a four-letter word. Negative when it does not have to be.

You would think we have enough in the history books already, plenty of chapters and usually dark, of where division leads.

Consider all this, if not now then when?