Bipartisan imperial consensus ran on a benevolence veneer both parties shared.

Evidence

Like enslavers and centrist anti-slavery Americans agreeing on the need to colonize free Black people (but disagreeing on colonizing the enslaved), leading white Republicans and Democrats agreed that substantial progress had been made (and disagreed only about whether racism was over). — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 1287 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Imperial parties transcended ordinary party competition by claiming state unity; Imperial ethnocratic racism spanned the pre-Trump bipartisan consensus; Rival political factions often agree on the progress premise itself — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project: A New American Origin…, 1287 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Imperial parties transcended ordinary party competition by claiming state unity #expands (0.85)
• Rival political factions often agree on the progress premise itself #corroborates (0.82) — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 1287
• Imperial ethnocratic racism spanned the pre-Trump bipartisan consensus #qualifies (0.80)
• Overseas basing consensus survives unquestioned across both U.S. parties even without a superpower rival #exemplifies (0.80)
• Imperial alignment outweighs democratic conduct in US labeling of leaders #expands (0.78)
• The clash-of-civilizations thesis spanned both US political parties #exemplifies (0.75)
• Strategic equivocation on divisive issues can hold an electoral coalition together. #corroborates (0.75) — Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger, The Populist Moment, 212