Trump and the Rhetoric of Tyranny

Trump and the Rhetoric of Tyranny

I used to see a bumper sticker on cars that said “If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention.” That is my message to all of my fellow Americans today.

In recent days America’s head of state and head of government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces has been more than implying that he believes critics and whistle-blowers undermining his presidency are traitors. According to one recording (according to news reports) he said of them that (paraphrasing) “We used to know what to do with them.”

Can a democracy, a free country, slide down into dictatorship and tyranny? Of course it can. It has happened many times before. “It can’t happen here” is a head-in-the-sand attitude of obscurantism. All the evidence of history is that it can happen anywhere.

For those of you readers “not in the know,” a U.S. government employee has claimed that there exist recordings of President Trump talking with the president of a foreign government urging him, possibly even threatening him, to investigate the business dealings of the son of a political rival.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

This accusation is so serious that even some in Trump’s own party are backing away from him and urging that the investigation of accusation by the U.S. House of Representatives go forward. Most of his party, however, rally around him no matter what he is accused of.

My concern here is not about whether the whistle blower’s accusation is true; that will eventually come out (if it is true) and I withhold judgment until then. “Innocent until proven guilty” applies to presidents also.

My concern is Trump’s “tweeted” and spoken responses to the accusations. The word “traitor” especially alarms me. When has whistle-blowing that does not involve giving aid and comfort to an enemy nation ever been legally traitorous? The U.S. Constitution clearly defines “traitor” as someone who aids the enemy in a time of conflict. It does not include accusing the head of state and head of government (they are one and the same in U.S. government) of abuse of power. It does not even include talking about “secrets” of the head of state and head of government insofar as the secrets are not classified for national security reasons.

According to news reports, one of Trump’s most influential evangelical supporters has publicly stated that he believes the whistle blower’s actions amount to treason and that impeachment of the president could lead to civil war. Yes, yes, I know. What he actually said was that it could lead to a civil-war like division within the U.S. I see little difference.

This rhetoric of “treason” and “traitor” only about an act of whistle blowing that does not in any way relate to national security is the rhetoric of tyranny. The national press needs to call it that.

At the very least such language will inevitably cast a “chill” over other potential whistle blowers within the government. And that is probably its purpose.

Again, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” Or, possibly, the prospect of a rogue president silencing critics with fear does not concern you because you agree with some of his policies. As a student of modern dictatorships, I know it is possible for a democratic society with freedom and liberty of speech can slide down into tyranny. And if it happens, I will not hesitate to tell you “I warned you” and “I told you so.” But chances are you will not care—so long as the tyrant is on your side and you do not feel any danger—even if dissidents begin to disappear as happened in Chile and Argentina in the 1970 through the 1990s.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).