By Matt Underwood The recent sharing of a video calling for “hardcore communist bastards” like Zohran Mamdani to be deported by a prominent political figure has sparked considerable discussion and, frankly, a lot of confusion. It’s interesting to observe the reaction, especially considering this figure once publicly praised Mamdani. This suggests a shifting political narrative, perhaps an attempt to reignite old fears, like the McCarthy-era “red scare,” a tactic many feel is out of touch with current concerns like economic hardship.
The video targets Zohran Mamdani, an elected official, labeling him a “hardcore communist bastard.” This characterization is starkly contrasted with the reality of Mamdani’s position. He’s not a communist in the historical sense; he’s an American citizen who won an election democratically. Furthermore, his approval ratings, particularly in key areas like Brooklyn and Manhattan, are quite high, indicating significant public support. He hasn’t been convicted of any crimes, making the call for his deportation seem particularly extreme and perhaps misplaced.
There’s a strong sentiment that this rhetoric draws parallels to historical instances of political persecution, with some observers noting similarities between current accusations of communism and the rhetoric used against Jewish people in Germany during the 1930s and 40s. This connection is unsettling for many, suggesting a regression in political discourse. The practice of labeling political opponents as communists has also been linked to the tactics of figures like Roy Cohn, known for his aggressive and often unscrupulous methods.
The term “communism” itself seems to be wielded loosely, with many arguing that the person sharing the video, and a significant portion of the public, don’t truly understand its meaning. This misapplication of the term is seen as a deliberate attempt to frighten voters, especially by linking it to concepts like democratic socialism, which are fundamentally different. The fear is that this manufactured fear around communism will distract from more pressing issues that affect everyday Americans, like their ability to afford basic necessities.
For those who lived through the Cold War, the anti-communism of that era was primarily an anti-totalitarian stance. Having witnessed the devastation caused by totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Mao’s China, there was a genuine desire to avoid such systems. The fear then was of authoritarianism and the suppression of individual freedoms. Today, some older Americans express concern that this historical understanding is being distorted, and that the “communism” being invoked bears a disturbing resemblance to the very authoritarianism they fought against.
The distinction between communism and democratic socialism is crucial here. Communism, historically, involved centrally controlled economies and brutal suppression of dissent. Democratic socialism, as advocated by figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, envisions a regulated market economy with distributed control and a focus on social welfare programs. The argument is that the contemporary political rhetoric often conflates these two, painting any progressive policy proposal with the broad brush of communism, thus creating a false equivalency and a scare tactic.
Some observers also point to government interventions in the economy by the very political figures decrying communism. Actions like government participation in gas stations or influencing corporate deals are seen by some as bordering on or even embodying aspects of state control, leading to accusations of hypocrisy. The concern is that these actions, when taken by those in power, are presented as necessary economic adjustments, while similar concepts proposed by others are immediately labeled as communist threats.
The frustration is palpable when individuals elected through democratic processes are targeted with such extreme rhetoric. The idea of deporting an elected official who is not a criminal and enjoys considerable public support raises questions about the stability and fairness of the political system. It suggests a deeper concern that the ” communism” label is being used as a convenient cudgel to attack any political opponent, regardless of their actual ideology or their standing with the electorate.
There’s a persistent feeling that this is an old playbook, a desperate attempt to rally support by exploiting historical anxieties. The comparison to dementia in political figures who resort to increasingly aggressive and nonsensical rhetoric is also made, suggesting a decline in reasoned political discourse. The focus on “communism” is seen by some as a fallback when other divisive issues, like immigration or trans rights, fail to generate the desired level of outrage.
The use of strong, inflammatory language like “hardcore communist bastards” and the call for deportation are seen as beyond the pale of civil discourse. This kind of language, it’s argued, is what leads to the labeling of those who employ it as fascists. It’s not about disagreeing on policy; it’s about an attack on the very idea of political opposition, an attempt to criminalize and ostracize those with different viewpoints.
Moreover, the notion of deporting elected officials, especially one who is a citizen, brings up fundamental questions about citizenship and political rights. The idea of deporting someone “back to America” highlights the absurdity of the suggestion. The historical precedent of calling for the deportation of individuals based on their political beliefs or perceived ideology is a deeply concerning trend that many find alarming, suggesting a dangerous path for democratic societies. The fear is that this type of rhetoric, if left unchecked, could erode fundamental democratic principles.