You will certainly hear “they come first”, a famous poem by German pastor Martin Niemöller on the road to Nazi Germany. This is one of the texts quoted so frequently that clichés can be felt. The poem begins with: “First of all, they are for the Communists, and I didn’t say it out loud because I’m not a communist.”
Then they came to find the Jews
I didn’t say it
Because I’m not a Jew
Then they came to me
And no one is left
Say it for me
Despite the overexposed exposure, Nimler’s poems are not often appreciated – apart from the abstract “your rights depend on protecting others” message, which is unpopular. He described the specific strategies used by the Nazis to eliminate German democracy.
There was a reason the Nazi targeted groups on the Nazi list: German politics made them particularly prone to demonization. They are either fragile minorities (Jews) or political disputes with the mainstream Germans (communists, socialists, trade unionists).
After taking office, the Nazis seized power, and with efforts to resolve threats such as “Jewish-Bolshevism”, they used the power of paranoid and political polarization to make ordinary Germans democracies.
Now, what is happening in the United States has a shocking echo of this ancient strategy. When engaging in illegal or border sprints, the Trump administration often follows highly polarized or unpopular goals. The idea is to politicize the basic civil liberties issue – to turn the defense of the rule of law into a defense of a widespread annoying group, or a common issue of partisan politics.
The government’s first known deportation of green card holders targeted pro-Palestinian University activists at Columbia University, the locations of some of the most radical anti-Israel activities. Therefore, Columbia is also its first university to target funding cuts. Trump also targets a more unpopular cohort: The first U.S. residents working in El Salvador prisons is a group his administration claims No evidence was provided yes Tren de Aragua Gang Members.
Trump counts on demonization and polarization of dual powers to justify their efforts to expand the administration and attack civil liberties. They want to make the conversation less about the principles (whether Trump is doing is legal or a threat to freedom of speech), but more about the referendum on whether the target group is good or bad.
Each sign will continue this pattern. And if we as a society do not understand how Trump’s strategy works, or where it causes it, then the damage to democracy can be disastrous.
How Trump’s strategy works
To view this Trump strategy, please note White House aide Stephen Miller’s recent Interview with Kasie Hunt of CNN.
During the interview, Hunter repeatedly imposed the government on Miller whether it was Violation of court orders By sending so-called Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador. Miller refused to talk about the key issues of democratic principles. Instead, he repeatedly tried to re-debate the debate surrounding the need to face the gang, believing that adhering to legitimate goodwill means handing over the state to the predators.
“How will you expel illegal alien invaders from my country [and] Murdering a little girl, if each deportation must be ruled by a district court judge? “It means you don’t have a country,” Miller said. This means you have no sovereignty. This means you have no future. ”
Of course, this is not a legal argument. If anything, it sounds like a parody of a political argument: “Oh, your opposition people were tortured in the El Salvador prison camp without due process? Guess you have to support Tren de Alaguya killing the little girl.”
But it sounds ridiculous, and it proves to be a powerful form of logic – not only in extreme cases like Nazi Germany.
In the years after 9/11, the Bush administration and its allies used similar arguments to discredit critics of its policies, which have since been defended by the incident. Observers who warn of threats to civil liberties are seen as terrorist sympathizers. Iraq War skeptics are labeled as Saddam’s defense attorney. This kind of moral blackmailing “you or against us” is at work for many people at home and abroad.
The key role of party polarization
Of course, this kind of thing worked in the Bush era, because after the 9/11 attacks, the average American caused great damage and anger to the average American. While many Americans may not like Tren de Aragua or Pro-Palestine campus protesters, the levels of public hysteria we’re seeing after one of the country’s biggest disasters aren’t as we’ve seen.
That’s why the Trump administration’s rhetorical strategy also involves another logic of division – the full capacity of partisan polarization.
The Trump administration’s rhetoric has not only tried to connect its opponents to gang members and terrorists. They also tried to connect judges and other non-partisan authorities to the Democrats. For example, at a press conference Wednesday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt mentioned the judges who weighed the legality of El Salvador’s deportation.Democratic Activist. ”
The idea here is to absorb the question of fundamental legal principles into a familiar partisan script – Democrats and Republicans. By invoking the polarization of partisan politics, they describe the true fundamental conflict over the rule of law as another argument between the two parties.
There is a lot of evidence that this approach can indeed legitimize Trump’s policies.
Christopher Browning, a famous Holocaust historian, wrote Several articles In the New York Review, what he called “Disturbing similarities“Between Germany and the United States today. One of Browning’s key points is that the rise of Nazism is largely a cautionary tale about “hyperpolarization”. The German central right-wing elites hate leftists very much. Hand him outstanding power to combat civil liberties Serving the crushing of socialism and communism.
When Browning focused his anger on the conservative elite, he compared Senator Mitch McConnell with German President Paul von Hindenburg who became Prime Minister Hitler, and social sciences tell us that polarization has similar effects on average voters.
In the 2020 paper, political scientists Matthew Graham and Milan Svolik published A paper tests the impact of polarization on citizens’ perceptions of democracy. Using exceptionally high-quality data, Svolik and Graham were able to show that few Americans (about 3.45%) are willing to vote against candidates for their preferred party even though That candidate engages in explicit anti-democratic behavior.
They believe that this is a function of polarization. When you hate the other party enough, the policy benefits of the election feel high – voters are willing to ignore or even abuse their power.
They wrote: “In a divided society, voters place the purpose of the party above democratic principles.”
This analysis is crucial to understanding why Trump wins even after the January 6 blemish in 2024. Today, it helps us understand how Trump’s rhetorical strategy hopes to make Americans, especially fellow Republicans, attack their fundamental freedoms.
