J.D. Vance Endorses Book with Dehumanizing “Unhumans” Language

A book was recently published titled Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them). It refers to progressive activists as “unhumans.” The authors write: “As they are opposed to humanity itself, they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman.”

The authors also take an anti-democracy stance. They argue that “democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans” and they praise authoritarian dictators of the past. 

The book paints a catastrophizing view of the dark forces of the “unhumans” around us. They write, “You may already be a subject of unhumans. You are employed by unhumans. You are married to . . . you get it. You know. There’s nowhere for you to run or to hide.”

The book received much attention due to several prominent Republicans writing promotional blurbs for it — including J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for Vice President: 

“In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, [the authors] reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

People expressed concern at the dehumanizing “unhumans” language and the overall attempt to provoke extreme fear and contempt. Some comments: 

“The portrayal of any group as not human is rhetoric all Americans should not merely shrug off or laugh at as ‘weird,’ but also heed as deliberate and dangerous.” (NYT article comment)

“Intended to turn Americans against their fellow countrymen.” (Amazon review)

“Right-wingers, they write, must stop these unhumans with a policy of ‘exact reciprocity.’ This means doing exactly to these so-called unhumans what the authors claim the unhumans are planning to do to them. The 283-page screed reads like an effort to incite a civil war.” (from writer Gil Duran)

“This is how genocide occurs, by saying your political rivals are less than human. Very dangerous indeed.” (NYT article comment)

Let’s leave aside discussion about the goodness or badness of various forms of progressive-associated activism. One thing that we should all agree on is that using dehumanizing language about our political opponents is a serious problem. As you likely know, dehumanizing language has been a factor in all sorts of atrocities throughout history (for example, during the Holocaust, Germans described Jews as “Untermenschen,” or subhumans).

It’s entirely possible to think your political opponents are doing bad things — even very harmful things — without reaching for dark, sky-is-falling narratives about their malicious nature. It’s possible to think your fellow citizens are doing harm while seeing the more human, rational — and sometimes banal — explanations for their stances and behaviors. 

Many conservatives say they dislike the extremely pessimistic ways in which liberals talk about them (for example, see assorted work on overly pessimistic framings about Trump voters). Conservatives who genuinely want to reduce toxicity should see it as important to avoid dehumanizing language and take a stand against it when they see it on their “side.”

The Unhumans authors also seem to have little interest in differentiating between more extreme, militant far-left beliefs and more moderate, reasoned iterations of such beliefs. Conservatives should see how this would be like someone on the left lumping in more moderate conservative beliefs with more extreme, militant iterations. 

We should recognize how easy it is to construct extremely pessimistic narratives about our opponents and tie “them” to all sorts of insidious things from the past. Humans are good at weaving stories. We’ll create and embrace stories that align with our biases and our dislike and fear of “them.” 

Some parting thoughts for Trump supporters: 

• How would you feel if a Democratic candidate endorsed a book calling pro-Trump activists non-humans or similar language? 
• Do things like this help you understand the fears and anger that Democratic voters have? 
• Consider how hateful rhetoric on the right can generate some of the responses and pushback on the left that upsets you. For example, dehumanizing and anti-democratic rhetoric from conservatives help create views that conservatives have a dark, dangerous agenda in store (which can be seen as related to the aims of far-right dictators throughout history). This can, in turn, drive more extreme liberal-side views and actions in response. Contempt and fear drive more contempt and fear. 

And for anti-Trump people: 

• It’s possible J.D. Vance gave the authors the blurb before knowing the dehumanizing title and framing of the book. Even if true, this doesn’t excuse his endorsement, but we want to acknowledge this might be more nuanced than we know.
• Remember that the “other side” is not all the same. Not all Trump voters would make or endorse such dehumanizing language. Conflict leads to people not caring much about bad behaviors on “their side” due to mostly being focused on the threats they see on the “other side.” Keeping these points in mind can help us avoid adding to the cycle of insults and dehumanization. 

Want to stay in the loop about efforts to reduce toxic polarization? Sign up for our newsletter.