Steve Russell: Indian Country isn't divided into 'left' or 'right'

Most Indians think they are off to the side of these distinctions, with the exception of the late Comanche who claimed to be the voice of conservatism in Indian country, David Yeagley. Clinging to his doctorate in music to give the impression of authority on political science, Yeagley claimed to be a descendent of Bad Eagle but cloaked himself in what he took to be the “reality” of white supremacy.

The white supremacists—many of whom admire Adolf Hitler—define the very fringe of the radical right. Yeagley wrote that “Hitler was partially right” to view the white race as an embattled minority. In the same essay, Yeagley claimed:

Superior beauty is in the white race, with its scintillating varieties of color: red, brown, amber, golden hair... green, blue, light brown, gray eyes. In the darker races, everything is always the same, dark brown and black a beastly bore.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but in my Indian circles, Yeagley was an extreme outlier, a minority of one on the far right lane if not the shoulder of the road.

The Democratic and Republican parties represent a very narrow lane in the autobahn of world politics. A Democrat currently heads my tribal government, but the prior Chief was Republican, and nobody makes a big deal of it.

The dependency imposed purposely on Indians means that, among those who articulate politics not based on personalities, the welfare state is taken for granted. This would not be a particularly leftist position in Europe.

Providing health care as a government responsibility is not controversial there, and that’s why the British Conservatives support the National Health Service. Because the same thing is controversial here, we get chronic underfunding of the Indian Health Service and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The political right would not want people to get the impression that government health care could work here like it does in Europe.