On The Radar: Anne Applebaum on Trump's Fascist Rhetoric
'The cultivation of hatred not only against immigrants but also against political opponents—none of this has been used successfully in modern American politics.' Will it work?
Anne Applebaum points out, in Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, that although American politicians have employed rhetoric in service to divisive politics, but until Trump we haven't heard outright fascist language. She provides numerous examples that demonstrate this assertion, with his invective directed toward undocumented immigrants, leftists, his political opponents, and the media. She wonders if this emulation of the fascist language of 1930s Europe will work with Americans.
Trump's recent rallies have him going full fascist, like he's aping Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other fascists. Even Wallace didn't call people vermin. Applebaum writes, 'In the 2024 campaign, that line has been crossed. Trump blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants [...]. He has said of immigrants, “They’re poisoning the blood of our country” and “They’re destroying the blood of our country.” He has claimed that many have “bad genes.” He has also been more explicit: “They’re not humans; they’re animals”; they are “cold-blooded killers.” He refers more broadly to his opponents—American citizens, some of whom are elected officials—as “the enemy from within … sick people, radical-left lunatics.” Not only do they have no rights; they should be “handled by,” he has said, “if necessary, National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”' 'In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes. “I haven’t read Mein Kampf,” he declared, unprovoked, during one rally—an admission that he knows what Hitler’s manifesto contains, whether or not he has actually read it. “If you don’t use certain rhetoric,” he told an interviewer, “if you don’t use certain words, and maybe they’re not very nice words, nothing will happen.”' 'His talk of mass deportation is equally calculating. When he suggests that he would target both legal and illegal immigrants, or use the military arbitrarily against U.S. citizens, he does so knowing that past dictatorships have used public displays of violence to build popular support. By calling for mass violence, he hints at his admiration for these dictatorships but also demonstrates disdain for the rule of law and prepares his followers to accept the idea that his regime could, like its predecessors, break the law with impunity.' 'With less than three weeks left to go, most candidates would be fighting for the middle ground, for the swing voters. Trump is doing the exact opposite. Why? There can be only one answer: because he and his campaign team believe that by using the tactics of the 1930's, they can win. The deliberate dehumanization of whole groups of people; the references to police, to violence, to the “bloodbath” that Trump has said will unfold if he doesn’t win; the cultivation of hatred not only against immigrants but also against political opponents—none of this has been used successfully in modern American politics.'
In conclusion, while Trump and the MAGA GOP have been actively employing this incendiary rhetoric for the first time in American politics, they are doing so without knowing whether it will work in the U.S. as it did in 1930's Europe. As she points out, 'Several generations of American politicians have assumed that American voters, most of whom learned to pledge allegiance to the flag in school, grew up with the rule of law, and have never experienced occupation or invasion, would be resistant to this kind of language and imagery. Trump is gambling—knowingly and cynically—that we are not.'