By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the wake of recent political violence, Vice President JD Vance, who now blames the left for inflammatory rhetoric, faced scrutiny regarding his past comments about Donald Trump. Multiple social media users resurfaced a 2016 text message in which Vance referred to Trump as “America’s Hitler.” This prompted responses from prominent figures like Representative Eric Swalwell and the Lincoln Project. Despite his past criticisms, Vance has since become a staunch supporter of Trump, aligning himself with the president’s views on issues like political discourse.
Read the original article here
Internet reminds JD Vance that he once called Trump ‘Hitler’ as he demands left stop using ‘Nazi’ to describe opponents, and the irony is absolutely dripping from the internet’s response. It’s a classic case of history, or at least the internet, not forgetting. The crux of the matter is that JD Vance, now a prominent figure in the Republican party and a supporter of Donald Trump, once used far stronger language to describe the former president. Specifically, he called Trump “Hitler.” Now, he’s apparently taking issue with the left using the term “Nazi” to describe his opponents, presumably including Trump and those around him. This juxtaposition is, to put it mildly, being met with a healthy dose of internet outrage and derision.
The immediate reaction, and a very common one, is highlighting the hypocrisy. If you, JD Vance, once deemed Trump akin to Hitler, what standard are you now applying to critique others’ use of the term “Nazi”? The internet is pointing out that he seems to be objecting to the very labels he once found appropriate, or at least acceptable, to use. This contradiction isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a stark example of a politician seemingly shifting his views to align with his current political affiliations, a move that many online find cynical and opportunistic. The internet is full of commentary about how Vance sought to advance himself by aligning with Trump, a move they are now seeing as being motivated by ambition rather than principle.
The conversation veers into the core of how the term “Nazi” is being used. Many online commentators feel it’s entirely appropriate to use the term when behaviors or ideologies align with those of the Nazis. If actions resemble Nazism, then why shouldn’t the label be applied? The fundamental argument is that if someone “acts like a Nazi,” then the descriptor is a fitting one. The internet is arguing the very act of protesting the label “Nazi” while embracing policies and rhetoric reminiscent of that regime is, in itself, quite telling. It’s a case of “if the shoe fits…”
The online discussion broadens to include the broader context of political discourse. Many are highlighting how the right, in particular, has a long history of accusing their opponents of being “Communists” or other derogatory terms. This is viewed as a selective outrage. The point is that they’re complaining about the same thing, it’s simply the tables have turned. The internet is not holding back in its assessment of the situation, and the consensus seems to be that this objection is nothing more than a cynical attempt to control the narrative.
The argument is that there’s a refusal to see the current political climate for what it is: an erosion of democratic norms. Many commentators are expressing frustration and anger at what they perceive as a genuine threat to democracy. They’re questioning how anyone, including Vance, can fail to see the parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and actions and the rise of authoritarianism. The internet is full of the sentiment that this isn’t just politics as usual, but a very real threat to the foundations of American democracy.
The internet is full of creative, often crude, ways to express its distaste for the situation, ranging from sarcastic remarks and comparisons to South Park. The internet is turning the tables in its own ways, using humor and satire to dissect and criticize Vance’s position, and often the hypocrisy they believe he embodies. The common thread running through these comments is the idea that Vance’s concerns about the term “Nazi” ring hollow when viewed against his own history.
The conversation comes back to the core issue: what does it mean to call someone a Nazi? The consensus seems to be, at least on the internet, that the description is reserved for those whose actions, rhetoric, or ideologies align with those of the Nazis. The argument boils down to this: if someone does Nazi-like things, then the label is merited. It is, at this point, almost universally agreed upon that the issue is Trump.
The more nuanced arguments delve into the complexities of applying the “Nazi” label. There is a recognition that while Trump may exhibit some behaviors and espouse some ideologies that align with fascism, his specific stance does not entirely meet the criteria. This argument claims that Trump, in some views, aligns more closely with the classic definition of a fascist leader. The internet recognizes that although Trump is not a perfect example of a Nazi, he is close enough and potentially dangerous, and that the label, in the context of the current political climate, is understandable. The common opinion is that because Trump is a fascist, in that he promotes a regime style of authoritarianism mixed with elements of corporatism, it is not necessarily a problem to call him a Nazi.
The Internet is not holding back in its criticism of JD Vance. He is being called a hypocrite, and worse. The overall sentiment is that Vance is not only being dishonest about the current political situation but also that he is playing a dangerous game by enabling, and possibly even promoting, an agenda that, in the view of many, threatens American democracy.