By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, former White House official Stephen Miller claimed Newsom’s rhetoric “incites violence and terrorism.” Miller’s statement suggests an effort to broaden the definition of incitement, potentially criminalizing protected political speech that criticizes the administration. This comes amid other moves by the Trump administration, like the designation of “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization,” which critics fear will be used to target those who label the government as “authoritarian”. These actions, and similar statements by other officials, indicate a growing trend of equating criticism with violence, raising concerns about free speech protections.
Read the original article here
Stephen Miller Claims Simply Calling Trump Authoritarian ‘Incites Violence and Terrorism’ – What an absurd claim, isn’t it? The notion that labeling a political figure, in this case, Donald Trump, as authoritarian somehow directly triggers violence and terrorism is, frankly, a bit of a stretch. It feels like a desperate attempt to deflect criticism and shut down any discussion about the nature of the former President’s actions and policies. It echoes the kind of rhetoric often employed by those seeking to silence dissent, a hallmark of authoritarian regimes themselves. The very act of making such a statement, ironically, reveals a discomfort with criticism that is often associated with authoritarian tendencies.
One can’t help but compare this to other figures in history. When you look back at the reactions of actual authoritarian figures, they often employed similar tactics. They attempted to control the narrative, labeling those who opposed them as enemies of the state, or instigators of violence. This tactic stifles healthy debate and critical thinking. The implication is that if you dare to question, you are somehow responsible for any negative consequences that might follow. It’s a way of shifting the blame and avoiding accountability. It’s a classic move.
The underlying argument here seems to be that describing Trump as authoritarian is somehow equivalent to inciting violence. This is a disingenuous argument at best. The reality is that calling someone an authoritarian is a descriptor, a judgment based on their actions, policies, and rhetoric. It’s a statement that reflects a concern about the concentration of power, the erosion of democratic norms, and the potential for abuses of authority. It’s a way of analyzing a political leader’s behavior, not a call to arms.
This stance also highlights the hypocrisy of those who claim this. It’s worth pointing out that Trump and his supporters frequently used harsh rhetoric and accusations against their opponents, often without the same level of concern about inciting violence. They painted their political rivals as dangerous radicals, socialists, or even enemies of the people. Why isn’t this rhetoric held to the same standard? It seems that criticism of Trump is uniquely considered a dangerous act of aggression. This double standard only reinforces the impression of a desire to control the narrative and silence any opposition.
It also raises the question of free speech. In a free and open society, the ability to criticize political leaders, even in harsh terms, is fundamental. Labeling such criticism as an incitement to violence undermines this principle. It creates a chilling effect, discouraging people from expressing their views and engaging in robust public debate. A society where people fear to speak their minds is not a healthy democracy; it’s a society on the path to authoritarianism.
Ultimately, the argument that calling Trump authoritarian incites violence is a tactic designed to shut down criticism and protect the former President from accountability. It’s a sign of weakness, not strength. Truly strong leaders can handle criticism, mockery, and satire. They recognize that in a democracy, the free exchange of ideas, even those that are uncomfortable or challenging, is essential.
**Bibliography:**
* Christians Against Christian Nationalism. [https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/statement](https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/statement)
* Springs, Jason. “Race, Ressentiment, and Nihilism in White Evangelical Christian Nationalism.” *Contending Modernities*, July 1, 2021. [https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/theorizing-modernities/race-ressentiment-nihlism/](https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/theorizing-modernities/race-ressentiment-nihlism/)