Republicans Suddenly Agree That Steve King Is Too Racist for Them

For the last two years, Iowa representative Steve King must have been living in a dream come true. The kind of unhinged anti-immigrant racism that he's best known for went from being quietly ignored by establishment Republicans to the obsessive fixation of the president. Both the Justice and Homeland Security Departments were committed to terrorizing immigrants, and King wasn't shy about taking credit for coming up with Donald Trump's more asinine policies, like an actual wall on the southern border.

Then King gave what looks like a fateful interview with the New York Times, where he asked, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

In response, Tim Scott, the only black Republican senator, called out his party's silence on King in the kind of milquetoast op-ed that passes for courage among Republican leaders. This was followed by newly-minted senator Mitt Romney, who said, "What he said was reprehensible and ought to lead to his resignation from Congress.” Ted Cruz called King's comments "stupid." Mitch McConnell said if King was confused about why those things were offensive, then he should find another line of work. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy announced that King would lose his committee appointments and they would discuss "his future" with the Republican Party.

King has defended himself by saying that his comments were taken out of context and that he meant to only refer to "western civilization."

King's defense is bullshit, of course. "Western civilization" can plausibly be the topic for a high school history class, but it's also the preferred terminology of right-wing extremists as a way to have plausible deniability while talking about white supremacy. Even if that weren't a common phrase among white supremacists, King's own history proves that he meant his comments exactly as people are interpreting them. There are almost too many racist examples to exhume, so here's a recent one: At the 2016 Republican National Convention, he said that "civilization" is what it is because white people have contributed more to it than any other "subgroup."

So why do Republicans care all of a sudden? He's been saying this stuff for years and never faced any repercussions; Republican leaders never even blinked. And this isn't even the most extreme or callous thing he's ever said, like, for example, his claims that more than 99 percent of DREAMers are drug mules. And still King had support from the Republican establishment.

In 2012, Romney endorsed King's reelection campaign, shortly after King had said immigration policy should be like choosing "the pick of the litter" from "donor civilizations" and defended Todd Akin, the disgraced former congressman who claimed a woman's body could "shut down" pregnancy in the event of "legitimate" rape. In the 2016 presidential primaries, Ted Cruz made King the co-chair for his national campaign. And while McCarthy is taking away King's appointments now, he's still had the privilege and power of sitting on committees for all those other years.

In many ways, King's fringe ideology is now the mainstream position for Republicans in Congress. GOP leaders are offering no resistance to Trump's efforts to force through legislation for a useless and destructive border wall, no pushback when the White House lies about immigrants committing crimes or acts of terrorism, and no concern at all over desert prison complexes filled with families and children.

Why does King suddenly have to face consequences and Trump doesn't? One theory is that it's politically useful. He's a lowly representative with no real support outside of his district. With Trump's extreme unpopularity and Democrats in control of the House, there's less to gain from trying to keep the president's coalition of supporters together, and it's likely that King is a sacrifice, a way for GOP leadership to hedge their bets without the risk of actually taking a stand against the president himself. High profile Republicans can point to the backlash against him and say, See, we can't be racist because we didn't tolerate it that one time from that one guy. Of course, they'll still keep opposing things like voting rights, health care, and public education. For all his bluster, King's white nationalist ideas are largely cosmetic, like a border wall and making English the national language. But deeply embedded, systemic racism will long outlast whatever controversies King can stir up, and Republicans will tolerate it until it's no longer politically useful.