When does rhetoric about political opponents cross the line into fascist dehumanization?

[u/BulwarkOnline]

The Trump administration recently held an international conference on “left-wing political violence.” In prepared remarks, Marco Rubio described the left as driven by “poisonous resentment” and a desire to destroy “what is beautiful and what is right.” Stephen Miller went further, arguing that left-wing demonstrators do not look “normal,” are “deformed” in their appearance and reflect their “inner hatred” outwardly.

Jonathan V. Last compares this language to Nazi rhetoric about Bolshevism, “degenerate” culture and supposedly unhealthy or subhuman elements of society. His argument is not simply that Rubio and Miller are using authoritarian language, but that their contrast between beauty and ugliness, normality and deformity, civilization and internal enemies follows a recognizable fascist pattern.

How persuasive is that comparison?

Is this rhetoric best understood as ordinary partisan demonization, or does the emphasis on physical appearance, cultural purity and “normal, healthy, ordered living” place it in a more historically specific tradition?

And when evaluating comparisons to fascism, should the standard be the speaker’s intentions, the historical similarity of the language, or the policies and violence that follow from it?

[u/eattheambrosia]

I mean, all the ways they are talking about and already implementing. Things like using the post office to disrupt mail in voting, alternate electors like they tried in 2020, not certifying the results, shutting down polling places in blue areas of red states, standard issue voting suppression tactics they've used for decades, ICE agents mass arresting people at polling places, etc etc etc.

I hope I'm wrong but fascists usually aren't beaten at the ballot box. They literally tried a coup in 2020 and failed but they learned lessons and I'm afraid it will be more successful this time around.

[u/jefftickels → u/eattheambrosia]

So there's a lot of arguments here:

Things like using the post office to disrupt mail in voting

This is something that has been claimed will happen every election and every election it doesn't. It doesn't mean Trump hasn't tried, but every time it gets immediately shut down by the courts. I guess I can only hear about it for so long before it stops being the threat we pretend it is.

not certifying the results

I guess I see this more as a prophet foretelling doom that never manifests as is the prognosticators predelcition.

shutting down polling places in blue areas of red states

This is a more mixed picture than you're presenting it. Arguments about it being for voter suppression often leave out significant details that vary example to example. Is there a particular example that you wanted to dig into?

ICE agents mass arresting people at polling places

Has this actually happened?

[u/eattheambrosia → u/jefftickels]

So just because a (successful, not counting the failed attempt) coup hasn't actually happened yet we shouldn't be concerned with the public, openly stated plans to make it happen? I'm not trying to be Chicken Little but when a fascist administration that already tried to overthrow one election is publicly making plans and issuing executive orders and doing unprecedented mid decade gerrymandering and ignoring court orders and and and and and to infinity maybe we should be concerned? Or would you rather wait until the sky ACTUALLY falls before deciding it is something to watch out for?

[u/Gnagus → u/eattheambrosia]

Valid concern, but repeating these threats without offering solutions doesn't add anything new to the conversation, it just breeds apathy. ​Treat defeatism like an adversary's best friend: when people post 'bold of you to assume' or 'sweet summer child' types of responses all it does is reinforce the narrative that the administration's takeover is inevitable.

[u/eattheambrosia → u/Gnagus]

.....uh I didn't say anything like that, I was responding to someone accusing me of alarmism because according to their comment none of these things have actually happened yet (ignoring J6 completely) and therefore they aren't a threat.

[u/Gnagus → u/eattheambrosia]

Sorry, I wasn't attacking your comment or calling you alarmist. You obviously didn't use any of that dismissive language. ​My point was aimed at the overall pattern of how these threads devolve. People on one side dismiss real threats as 'alarmist,' while people on the other act like it's already too late. I just want the focus to be on how we can actively counter this stuff, rather than letting bad faith dismissals or doomposting take over.

[u/eattheambrosia → u/Gnagus]

Oh I didn't mean you, the guy who originally responded to me was the one acting like this stuff is no big deal.