By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article argues that labeling Donald Trump as a corrupt aspiring authoritarian is a legitimate critique, not an incitement to violence, despite claims from the right. This conservative argument, that Democratic rhetoric fuels violence against Trump, is flawed because it wrongly assumes violence is the only response to threats to democracy and ignores Trump’s own history of hyperbolic insults against rivals. Furthermore, this conservative principle would stifle any legitimate criticism of authoritarian tendencies, even if true, effectively granting politicians like Trump unchecked power. The true purpose of this conservative tactic is to suppress criticism of Trump’s contempt for democracy, which he actively stokes through his own rhetoric and actions.
Read the original article here
Calling Donald Trump a tyrant is not, in itself, a call to violence. It is, rather, an attempt to describe the nature of his political actions and rhetoric. When individuals label him a tyrant, they are often articulating a perception of his leadership style, which they see as authoritarian, undemocratic, and harmful to the fabric of the nation. This designation arises from specific behaviors and statements, such as his persistent accusations of election fraud, his verbal assaults on political opponents and institutions, and his seeming disregard for established norms and the rule of law.
The argument that such labels are inherently violent is often met with the counterpoint that the actions and words of the individual being labeled as a tyrant are far more incendiary and conducive to violence. When a leader consistently employs divisive language, demonizes opponents, and even mocks victims of violence, it can be argued that this is the true instigation. For instance, the description of a leader as a “fascist, rapist, con-man, and felon” reflects a deeply held belief that their very nature and actions are inherently destructive and criminal, and that these characteristics are the root cause of instability.
Furthermore, the idea that labeling someone a tyrant is a call to violence often overlooks the fact that such descriptions are frequently employed as a means of resistance *against* perceived tyranny. Many believe that governing as a tyrant is the actual call to violence, pushing citizens to seek redress. In this view, using the term “tyrant” is not an incitement to armed rebellion, but rather a descriptive term highlighting a dangerous form of governance that needs to be opposed through democratic means. The historical precedent of resisting oppressive regimes, whether through peaceful organizing or more forceful measures, suggests that such descriptions are part of a broader struggle for liberty and justice.
The criticism that labeling Trump a tyrant fuels violence often ignores his own history of inflammatory rhetoric. He has routinely described his political adversaries with terms like “communists,” “traitors,” “scum,” “terrorists,” and “vermin.” He has also suggested that political opponents engage in “treasonous” behavior, even alluding to the death penalty for perceived sedition. When juxtaposed with the accusations leveled against those who call him a tyrant, this creates a striking hypocrisy. The argument is that if calling for the arrest of political rivals or suggesting they deserve the death penalty is not considered a call to violence, then the use of the term “tyrant” to describe such actions is certainly not.
Moreover, the assertion that labeling someone a tyrant is a call to violence can be seen as a tactic to silence legitimate criticism. If every strong critique of a leader’s authoritarian tendencies is immediately framed as an incitement to violence, then it becomes nearly impossible to hold such leaders accountable. This creates a chilling effect on free speech and public discourse. The comparison is made that if criticizing a politician’s democratic shortcomings is inherently violent, then even questioning the commitment to democracy of a figure like Mussolini could be construed as dangerous. This implies that any form of opposition to perceived authoritarianism, however valid, would be deemed unacceptable.
The idea that labelling is inherently violent also fails to distinguish between description and prescription. Calling someone a tyrant is a descriptive label based on observed behavior and rhetoric. It is a statement of perceived fact, not a directive for action. This is akin to calling a spade a spade; it acknowledges a reality without necessarily advocating for the use of that spade. The emphasis is on the accuracy of the description rather than the potential consequences of its utterance. If a leader acts in ways that are widely perceived as tyrannical, then the label itself is a consequence of their actions, not a cause of violence.
Furthermore, the argument that the label “tyrant” is a call to violence is often dismissed by pointing out that the very actions of those labeled as tyrants inherently generate chaos and conflict. When a leader is accused of turning “calm into chaos,” “competence into incompetence,” and “stability into anarchy,” the use of the term “tyrant” is seen as a direct reflection of this destructive governance. The “tyrant-o-saurus” description, while perhaps colorful, encapsulates the sentiment that such a leader’s actions are inherently disruptive and harmful, and that using the label is a way to articulate this perceived threat.
The double standard often highlighted is that while Democrats might be accused of inciting violence for calling Trump a tyrant, Trump’s own rhetoric, which has included suggestions of violence against rivals and has been linked to events like the January 6th Capitol riot, is often downplayed or excused. The question is raised: who is truly the instigator of violence? The repeated use of terms like “enemy of the people,” “vermin,” and “animals” by Trump is contrasted with the labeling of him as a tyrant, suggesting that the former is far more indicative of a call to harm than the latter.
Ultimately, the notion that calling Trump a tyrant is a call to violence is seen as a mischaracterization. It is argued that such a label is a legitimate form of political commentary, a descriptive term used to critique behavior perceived as authoritarian and detrimental to democracy. The onus, many believe, lies not with those who use the label, but with the individual whose actions and words have led to such widespread characterizations. The call to violence, in this perspective, emanates not from the descriptive term, but from the tyrannical governance it seeks to describe and resist. The founding of America itself, after all, was an act of violence against a state, and the principle of “sic semper tyrannis” – thus always to tyrants – has historical resonance within democratic ideals.