By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Governor JB Pritzker criticized President Trump’s suggestion of deploying National Guard troops to Chicago, comparing it to the Nazi Party’s dismantling of a constitutional republic in the 1930s. Trump, while criticizing Pritzker and Chicago’s mayor, insinuated Pritzker’s presidential ambitions. Pritzker responded by rejecting Trump’s proposal, citing his lack of legal authority, and highlighted the city’s recent decline in crime rates. The back-and-forth occurred after Pritzker acknowledged he might consider a 2028 presidential run.
Read the original article here
Gov. JB Pritzker’s recent comparisons to the Nazi regime are not new, but they resonate deeply given the current political climate and the actions of former President Trump. Pritzker, known for his outspoken criticism of Trump, has repeatedly drawn parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and actions and the rise of Nazism in Germany, a comparison that has sparked both controversy and affirmation.
The trigger for this latest round of comparisons was Trump’s threat of a “DC-like takeover” in Chicago. Pritzker, reacting swiftly, framed Trump’s actions as a potential overreach of federal power and a direct challenge to the city’s autonomy. His response was not simply a denial of Trump’s authority, but a broader condemnation that included accusations of a “hell-bent” attempt to dismantle constitutional democracy, echoing the rapid dismantling of the Weimar Republic by the Nazis. Pritzker also didn’t shy away from highlighting Trump’s legal troubles, further fueling the comparison to a leader who consistently disregards the rule of law.
The core of Pritzker’s argument, as voiced and amplified by others, centers on a perceived pattern of authoritarian behavior exhibited by Trump and his allies. The concerns center on immigrants in concentration camps, deploying federal troops to other cities, and claiming that the police can “do whatever the hell they want.” This all culminates in a Nazi-like behavior that is without a doubt authoritarian. This pattern is seen as a direct threat to democratic institutions, similar to the methods used by the Nazis to consolidate power in the 1930s. This argument suggests a methodical dismantling of democratic norms and a shift towards a more autocratic style of governance.
The fact that Pritzker has made these comparisons before, including during his State of the State address, indicates a consistent and deeply held conviction. He sees a dangerous trajectory in the current political landscape. The fear is that such actions, if left unchecked, could lead to a similar erosion of democratic principles and the rise of a dictatorial regime. These comments, coming from a prominent figure like Pritzker, serve as a warning to the public and a call to action.
The rhetoric of Trump is criticized for demonizing opponents, spreading misinformation, and undermining faith in democratic institutions. Those supporting this rhetoric, state that the Trump administration, during its time in power, took actions that mirror those of the Nazis. The argument here is that Trump is intentionally destroying democracy brick by brick. Pritzker’s use of the Nazi analogy, while perhaps controversial to some, aims to highlight the stakes and to galvanize opposition to what he sees as a clear and present danger.
One of the most important facts is that some individuals view calling a kettle, a kettle is not making a comparison. The Trump and GOP are viewed as nazis. By using the rhetoric, it’s to wake people up to the severity of the situation. If Pritzker is drawing these parallels, it’s likely because he sees an alarming trend of authoritarianism or dehumanizing language, and sometimes, strong warnings are necessary to wake people up to the severity of the situation.
The focus on Trump’s actions also includes his response to the January 6th insurrection, his rhetoric about political opponents, and his attempts to discredit the media and elections. His history of making comparisons, is the very definition of authoritarian behavior. These actions, when combined, are viewed by some as a calculated effort to weaken the checks and balances of democracy and centralize power. This is why he is compared to Stalinism.
The comparisons, therefore, are not merely about specific policies or events, but about a broader pattern of behavior that mirrors the historical tactics of authoritarian regimes. The current political climate, with its heightened polarization and erosion of trust in institutions, makes such comparisons all the more potent and concerning.