The Menace That Wasn’t: A Secular Humanist, Green Party Take on Trump’s Rushmore Sermon
There’s a particular genre of American political theatre that never quite goes out of style: the mountain, the flag, the borrowed marble faces of dead presidents, and a man at a podium warning you that the enemy is already inside the gates. On July 3, 2026, on the eve of the country’s 250th birthday, Donald Trump stood in front of Mount Rushmore and reached for the oldest prop in that theatre’s closet – communism – and dusted it off for an audience that, statistically, has never lived under it, never studied it seriously, and would be hard-pressed to name a single line from the *Communist Manifesto*. That’s not an accident. The speech wasn’t really about communism. It was about who gets to define “American,” who gets cast as a threat to it, and who gets to stand at the centre of the frame while doing the casting.
I’m writing this as a secular humanist and a GPEW & UK Green Party Member – which means I come to this with two specific moral and political objections. One is to political rhetoric that fuses patriotism to a particular ‘god'(s), and treats disbelief, doubt, or a different faith as a moral defect. The other is to language that smears environmental and economic reform as a totalitarian plot, because that language has spent forty years being used against exactly the kind of politics I care about.
The Return of an Old Formula
Red-baiting has a rhythm to it, and Trump’s speech followed the rhythm precisely: name an external ideology, claim it has infiltrated the homeland through newcomers, strip it of any economic or historical specificity, and then attach to it every imaginable evil – theft, godlessness, lawlessness, murder – until “communism” stops meaning an actual set of economic ideas and starts meaning simply *the enemy*. It is the McCarthy playbook with better production values. The tell is in the vagueness. Nowhere in the speech is there an actual communist policy platform, an actual party programme, an actual piece of legislation. There’s only atmosphere: menace, resurgence, mass control. That vagueness isn’t a flaw in the rhetoric – it’s the whole function of it. A vague enemy can absorb almost anyone the speaker wants it to: a socialist mayor, an immigrant, a public school teacher, a climate scientist, a union organiser, a Green.
And that absorption is precisely why this matters to those of us who spend our political lives arguing for climate policy, wealth redistribution, and structural reform of capitalism. We have watched this same conflation trick used against basic proposals – public healthcare, a carbon tax, tenant protections – for decades. “Socialism” and “communism” get used almost interchangeably in speeches like this one, which is either ignorance of or indifference to the fact that Scandinavian social democracy, American-style progressive taxation, eco-socialism, and Soviet-style single-party state ownership are not the same thing, do not share a history, and do not share an outcome. Collapsing them into one bogeyman isn’t an argument. It’s a way of making argument unnecessary.
“They Don’t Love ‘God(s)’…” – The Theological Loyalty Test
The line that should trouble anyone who takes secularism seriously is the claim that the supposed communist newcomers “don’t love God,” “don’t want God,” and have no interest in religion – as though these were self-evidently disqualifying traits in an American, and as though love of ‘God(s)’, (fantasies and delusions) were a reliable predictor of respect for the rule of law. This is not a description of communism. Historical communist states were genuinely, often violently, hostile to organised religion, and that history is real and worth reckoning with. But the rhetorical move here isn’t a critique of state atheism as state policy – it’s an implication that irreligion itself, present-tense, in an ordinary citizen or newcomer, is evidence of moral rot.
That should unsettle a lot more people than it seems to. Non-religious Americans are one of the fastest-growing demographic categories in the country. Only a portion of them are politically left of centre, and essentially none of them are Soviet apparatchiks. To imply that lack of religious devotion correlates with lawlessness and “mass murder” isn’t a factual claim about political ideology – it’s a loyalty test with a cross on it, dressed up as a warning about Marx. A secular humanist ethic doesn’t need ‘God'(s )to generate a respect for law, human dignity, or “your God-given rights,” to use the speech’s own phrase; it grounds those things in the observable, arguable, revisable project of human reason and empathy instead. A speech that treats a categorical love of God as the load-bearing wall of civic virtue is not just historically sloppy about communism – it is quietly, casually exclusionary towards tens of millions of its own citizens.
Who Gets to Be a “Newcomer”
The line linking the “communist menace” explicitly to “newcomers to our country” deserves its own paragraph, because it is doing quiet, ugly work. Immigration anxiety and communism panic have been braided together in American rhetoric since at least the first Red Scare of 1919-20, when Attorney General Palmer’s raids targeted immigrant labour organisers as much as they targeted any coherent Bolshevik threat. The pattern repeats here: an ideological menace is described, and then it is given a face, and the face belongs to the person who arrived more recently than the speaker’s own ancestors did. It’s worth noting, as an aside that the speech itself doesn’t, that nearly every American is descended from a newcomer at some point, and that the timeline of “how long ago you got here” has never been a meaningful predictor of political ideology.
The Irony of “Mass Control”
Here’s where the Green in me can’t help but notice the mirror. The speech describes communism as “an ideology of mass theft, mass control, mass lies, and mass murder” – and follows it, in the same set of remarks, with a call to eliminate the Senate filibuster and pass a specific piece of legislation so that a single party need “not lose an election for 100 years.” Whatever one thinks of the filibuster as a procedural tool, a call for a hundred years of uncontested one-party rule, delivered in the same breath as a warning about “mass control,” is not a minor rhetorical stumble. It’s the thing the speech claims to be warning against, worn as a lapel pin.
This is the pattern that Greens and civil libertarians alike should recognise regardless of who is doing it: concentrated, unaccountable power is the actual danger, whether it wears a hammer-and-sickle or a flag pin. A one-party state is a one-party state whether its founding myth is proletarian revolution or American exceptionalism. The environmental movement in particular has learned this lesson the hard way – ecological collapse has been accelerated as readily by unaccountable state bureaucracies (the Soviet Union’s environmental record is genuinely catastrophic, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl) as by unaccountable corporate power in market democracies. The threat was never the label. It was the absence of checks.
Stolen Land, Real History
The speech also takes a swing at people “who tell our children that we live on stolen land or that our heroes were oppressors,” framing this as a communist lie about heritage. This is worth pausing on simply because it’s checkable. The displacement of Native nations from their land through treaty violation, forced removal, and military conquest is not a Marxist interpretation of American history; it’s the documented factual record, taught in university history departments with no particular ideological bent and available in the treaties themselves. Refusing to look at that record doesn’t make the country’s founding more secure – it just makes the founding myth more brittle, because myths that can’t survive contact with evidence eventually break all at once instead of bending gradually. A humanist approach to history says the honest version, oppressors and all, produces a more resilient civic identity than an insistence on unblemished virtue. You cannot build a durable patriotism on a historical record you’re not allowed to examine.
None of this is to say communism as historically practised is above criticism – quite the opposite. The gulag system, the Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields are real, and their death tolls are not political footballs; they are among the worst human-caused catastrophes on record and deserve unflinching moral reckoning, not what-about-ism from the left and not cartoonish flattening from the right. But precisely because that history is so serious, it deserves to be invoked accurately – as an argument about the specific dangers of one-party rule, command economies, and the suppression of dissent – rather than as a floating epithet applied to socialists, environmentalists, secularists, and immigrants alike because they are politically inconvenient this news cycle.
A Green politics that argues for public transit, a carbon price, universal healthcare, and stronger labour protections is not a request for a politburo. It is, if anything, a bet that democratic institutions – the same institutions this speech claims to be defending – are strong enough to legislate ambitious change without collapsing into the very authoritarianism the speech warns against. Painting that politics with the same brush as Stalinism isn’t vigilance. It’s an [ironically] bad faith way of making sure ambitious reform never gets argued on its merits at all.
The Actual Choice
The speech ends on a binary: you can be a communist, or you can be a patriot, and you cannot be both. It’s a tidy line, and tidy lines are usually where the thinking stopped. The real choice on offer in American politics has never been between Marxist revolution and the status quo. It’s a choice among a wide field of positions on how much the public sector should do, how power and wealth should be distributed, how religious pluralism should be protected, and how honestly a country tells its own history. Collapsing that whole field into a loyalty oath – love ‘God(s)’, distrust newcomers, don’t question the founding myth, or be filed under “menace” – isn’t patriotism. It’s a disingenuous shortcut around the argument, aimed at anyone who might otherwise have made one.
Leave a Reply