By John Q. Hosedrinker 
GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska has expressed his disapproval of the State Department’s decision to feature President Donald Trump’s likeness and signature on a limited run of U.S. passports commemorating America’s 250th birthday. Bacon likened the move to the propaganda tactics seen in Soviet-era Russia and communist China, stating that “We’re America and I think we do less of that.” He characterized the design as an “overreach” by Trump’s subordinates seeking to gain his attention, emphasizing that such displays are not characteristic of American tradition. This special edition passport, with 250,000 copies, will be available only through in-person renewals at the Washington D.C. passport agency.
Read the original article here
The idea that official documents, specifically U.S. passports, might feature the image of a sitting or former president draws a stark comparison to the practices often associated with communist and authoritarian regimes. A recent sentiment from a Republican Representative suggests that such a development isn’t a leap away from what was once a subject of derision in those very states, but rather strikingly similar, if not identical, to them. This observation, while coming from within the political spectrum often supportive of the former president, highlights a growing unease about the direction of certain symbolic gestures and their implications.
The notion of putting a living leader’s face on a passport is immediately striking because it diverges so sharply from established democratic norms. For decades, many in the United States and other democratic nations viewed the use of such imagery on official identification or currency as a hallmark of personality cults and a clear indicator of a lack of democratic values. The very act of laughing at these displays in countries like the USSR or North Korea underscored a belief in the superiority of systems that did not elevate a single individual to such a ubiquitous and personal level of iconography.
This critical perspective implies that the current discussion isn’t about a minor policy tweak but about a fundamental shift in what a passport represents. Instead of being a symbol of national identity and a travel document facilitating entry into other sovereign nations, it risks becoming a billboard for personal aggrandizement. The concern is that such a move could be interpreted as an attempt to “Trumpify” national symbols, using the nation’s 250th anniversary as a convenient, yet hollow, justification.
The comparison to communist states is particularly pointed because it invokes a history of propaganda and control. When governments in such systems featured their leaders on passports or money, it wasn’t merely for aesthetic reasons; it was a deliberate strategy to reinforce the leader’s image, project an aura of unchallengeable authority, and instill a sense of loyalty, often out of fear rather than genuine admiration. The sentiment is that to see this mirrored, even in potential discussions or proposals, is a disquieting development.
Furthermore, the observation suggests a potential lack of self-awareness or a deliberate disregard for historical context. The same individuals or political factions that once decried such practices as signs of totalitarianism now seem to be contemplating or even endorsing them. This perceived hypocrisy is a key element in the criticism, leading some to lament a loss of dignity, honesty, and integrity in public discourse and governance. The feeling is that the line between patriotic admiration and cult of personality is being blurred, if not completely erased.
The comparison extends to the visual elements themselves. When juxtaposed with images of leaders from communist states, the perceived similarities are unnerving. The expressions and context often convey a sense of gravitas or, in some cases, a manufactured sense of hope. The implication is that the alternative imagery being discussed carries a different, perhaps less dignified, tone, further fueling the criticism. The idea of needing a new passport but not wanting one adorned with such imagery speaks to a personal disavowal of the trend.
It’s also pointed out that even within countries like China, where Mao Zedong’s image is prominent, it is generally associated with historical figures rather than living leaders. This distinction is significant; featuring a deceased national hero is often seen as a nod to history and foundational ideals, whereas prominently displaying a living leader on essential documents ventures into the realm of personal vanity and the cult of personality, a practice more commonly associated with dictators and monarchs.
The commentary also touches upon the potential motivations behind such proposals. The idea that a president would want to feature their own image on passports could be interpreted as a desire to cement their legacy or, more worryingly, as a sign of an unwillingness to relinquish power. The speculation about who might benefit financially from such changes, such as through kickbacks, adds another layer of concern regarding transparency and potential corruption.
The very act of debating or considering such a change in U.S. passports is seen by many as a step too far, irrespective of whether it is explicitly labeled as communist or fascist. The core issue is the departure from democratic principles and the embrace of iconography that has historically been used to suppress dissent and consolidate power. The sentiment is that true patriotism and support for democratic values are becoming mutually exclusive with support for actions that echo authoritarian practices.
Ultimately, the comparison to practices laughed at in communist states serves as a stark warning. It suggests that the United States may be moving towards a political landscape where the very things it once criticized in other nations are becoming normalized, raising profound questions about the nation’s identity and its commitment to democratic ideals. The hope expressed is that a critical mass will recognize the potential dangers and steer away from such a path, even if it means facing uncomfortable truths about the direction of political discourse and leadership.