AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack
- For years, Donald Trump has been condemned for fiery rhetoric that critics say sounds authoritarian.
- Lately, his speeches have had even more overtly fascist themes, an expert on extremism told BI.
- Peter Simi, who testified against Trump, explained why people seem numb to his increasingly violent remarks.
In recent weeks, Donald Trump has doubled and even tripled down on the charged rhetoric that critics have lamented sounds like it's coming from the mouth of an authoritarian leader as opposed to a candidate for president of a democracy.
During his Veteran's Day speech late last month, the former president compared his political opponents to "vermin," adding in a post on Truth Social that he pledged to "root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."
Though some critics seized upon the remark, conflating the incendiary remarks with Nazi talking points that targeted Jews during the Holocaust, Trump's comments weren't met with the same explosive news coverage he previously faced for similar statements.
So, he has continued making them.
On December 6, when asked if he'd abuse his power as retribution against his political foes, the former president told Fox News host Sean Hannity that, should he be re-elected in 2024, he'll only be a dictator "on day one."
On December 17, Trump declared immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country," a statement that drew ire from the Biden White House, which said the comments "parroted Adolf Hitler."
Despite the escalating rhetoric, none of Trump's recent remarks have seemed to garner the same outrage that he has in the past.
Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University, has studied extremist groups and violence for 25 years and has co-authored two books about white supremacy in America. He was called as an expert witness to testify against Trump in a Colorado case in which Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan ethics watchdog group, has argued the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running for office in 2024 due to his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Simi spoke to Business Insider to explain why, even as Trump's rhetoric becomes increasingly extreme and highlights themes of fascism and authoritarianism, the former president's violent speeches aren't demanding the world's attention like they used to.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Trump's rhetoric used to be something people were blown away by; it made many headlines. Even as his rhetoric seems to be escalating, his comments aren't hitting the same way on the social Richter scale. Am I off-base to think he seems to be getting even bolder with his remarks when the cameras aren't all pointed his way?
It's important to note the long-standing nature of these kinds of communication patterns with Trump. Certainly, more recently, there have been various things that he said that would suggest an escalation. But it's both: there's a long-standing pattern, and then there are also certain things that have happened recently that suggest an escalation and certainly have hallmarks of authoritarianism, and fascism — the various -isms. So certainly, these comments would fit that here as far as the vermi,n but they are not really that much different in many respects from his prior references to infestations that go back quite a ways actually, long before his political career.
Can you give me examples of times his phrasing touched on those troubling themes?
Certainly, within terms of his political career, the use of the words "infest" or "infestation" is pretty substantial in terms of the different contexts that he's used it to refer to immigrants, MS-13 specifically, and people in predominantly African American parts of Baltimore.
He told members of Congress, women of color, to go back to the crime-infested countries where they came from. More recently there's also this comment about his political opponents being vermin — but also as it relates to things he's been saying he'd do if he were to be reelected, like what they're planning to do with Department of Justice. You can also look at some of the things he said he'd do if he's successful in 2024, things that Steve Bannon has been talking about for years in terms of deconstructing the administrative state. It's like you have all these little pieces, and they have to be kind of fit together to fully understand the kind of Gestalt that then makes a description like authoritarianism or fascism very accurate versus appearing as hyperbole.
That's a pattern I've seen — shrugging off the criticism of Trump sounding like an authoritarian as "hyperbole." Do you think that's because he's faced that specific criticism for so long?
I do think that might be part of it. I think there's a tendency, in some ways, if somebody points out a comment saying there's kind of hallmarks of fascism or authoritarianism, people sometimes will respond with "Well, that's an exaggeration," or "You may be overreacting," but that's why it's so important to see the full context and the full fabric of the things that he said both recently and not so recently.
And do you think people are reluctant to look at the whole picture?
You know, the problem with perceiving Trump in the full context of the threat he represents is referred to as "defining deviance down." This was a concept that Congressman Patrick Moynihan, who was also a sociologist, wrote about in the early 90s. It was this idea that, at certain points in time, deviance can have a higher or lower threshold for how it's defined. And that definition is subjected to all kinds of contextual situational factors. Historical factors will affect how we view deviance as it relates to a particular person. I think that's exactly what's happened with Trump, is that deviance has been defined down in the sense that there's so much focus on, it's almost like an overload of sorts. The result is, you just don't see it — it's almost like he's kind of normalizing this on some level. Even as outrageous as he can be, it's been very difficult, I think, for people to maintain a consistent vigilance and see the threat that he represents because it's kind of overwhelming, really, in many respects.
So it has to be a remarkably negative comment or some kind of plan of action he says to even register as out of character for him?
Yeah, I mean, one of the things that's really remarkable about his record is that he's been able to consistently promote violence over many years, and that hasn't been a dealbreaker. Within the context of conventional politics, just one instance of advocating for violence, I think, in many cases would end a person's career, but he's been able to do that repeatedly. Like the whole classic line he had about standing on Fifth Avenue and shooting someone, that he would still maintain their support. It's just very inconsistent with what I think would often happen if a typical politician suggested something along those lines in terms of violence.
And what do you attribute that to? From your perspective, is there something that he could do that would change the tides for his supporters, or do you think he's right in saying that there's not a lot that he could do to shake their support?
I mean, there's always going to be some percentage of folks that come and go in terms of support with a leader like this, but he does seem to have a core base that's been pretty resilient. They maintain their support for him and it's hard, at this point, to see what it would take to change that for the core base of true believers who are unwavering and fully committed in his camp.
But that's not all of those who support Trump; there is there is some kind of variability there. We have seen that people no longer support him at various points, whether it was January 6 or otherwise. There has been some layer that gets peeled off, but there does seem to be a core of these unwavering folks that makes it hard to figure out what it would take for them to no longer support him.
What makes you sure Trump's rhetoric is tangible evidence of an authoritarian ideology, rather than us just piecing together scraps and trying to make them fit that narrative?
I think what gives it its greatest degree of tangibility is the fact that there are so many different puzzle pieces that fit very closely. We're not stretching things here; the pieces are all there and closely connected, in some cases already connected. And that does make it very tangible. I think that's something that's difficult to deal with; like when he says these things and does these things, it might be similar to what far-right extremists, fascists, and authoritarians do, but there's still a degree of removal in people's minds between what he's saying and doing and those ideas in these constructs. And that's in part because we have an image in our head of what those things look like, and it's not our leaders.
So you're saying that because he doesn't look like what we imagine an authoritarian or fascist to look like, people have a hard time labeling him as one?
The fact of the matter is, whether we're talking about far-right extremism or white supremacy, authoritarianism or fascism, whichever construct you want to use here, these are things that people — regular people — embody. But I think we have a lot of stereotypical ideas about what white supremacy looks like because in the United States history with groups like the Klan, there's white sheets or there's shaved heads and swastikas. And those are all things that, yeah, sure, are real indicators, but you can have white supremacy without any of those things being present. So I think we're a little confused when we see authoritarianism, fascism, white supremacy, and far-right extremism. We expect to see certain markers, and if we don't see those things, then those concepts seem farther removed — even if there's lots of evidence that's consistent with that ideology.