Update Article: 180

Original Title

Sanitized Title

Clean Title

Source ID

Article Id01

Article Id02

Corpus ID

Dup

Dup ID

Url

Publication Url

Download Url

Original Abstract

While many scholars have examined the rhetoric of President Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler individually, there is a void of scholarly work that highlights the similarities between the two leaders’ use of grandiloquent language to stoke the passions of their perspective nations. In the past one hundred years, rhetoric and propaganda have been employed to push political agendas that are divisive and dangerous. Trump’s incendiary vocabulary–“enemy of the people,” “vermin,” “retribution,” etc., employed frequently throughout his campaign and presidency, in many ways echoes Hitler\u0027s speeches and declarations. While their political strategies ultimately differed greatly, a close analysis of their speeches, transcripts, and broadcasts reveals comparable language styles and rhetoric that have implicit meanings that influence audiences/supporters and result in direct ramifications. The similarities of their styles –written and spoken– are readily apparent and, therefore, seamlessly permit analysis.
This study argues that Trump and Hitler ascended to power in very similar ways, but primarily through a variety of rhetorical exploitations and appeals. To corroborate this claim, this work will dissect historical events, speeches, and actions associated with each leader and their respective time and circumstances. The research suggests that both leaders relied on assertions that positioned them as outsiders; and each boldly claimed, as outsiders, only they could fix a broken and corrupt government. Additionally, an explosion of misinformation and propaganda became paramount to maintaining power and control. This work intends to contribute to the historical and political conversation regarding rhetoric, and its relation to obtaining and preserving power

Clean Abstract

Tags

Original Full Text

Gardner-Webb University Digital Commons @ Gardner-Webb University Undergraduate Honors Theses Honors Program 2024 Rhetorical Demagoguery: An Exploration of Trump’s and Hitler’s Rise to Power Tanner Horne thorne5@gardner-webb.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/undergrad-honors  Part of the American Politics Commons, Comparative Politics Commons, Economic Policy Commons, International Relations Commons, Other Political Science Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Public Administration Commons, and the Social Policy Commons Citation Information Horne, Tanner, "Rhetorical Demagoguery: An Exploration of Trump’s and Hitler’s Rise to Power" (2024). Undergraduate Honors Theses. 62. https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/undergrad-honors/62 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at Digital Commons @ Gardner-Webb University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Gardner-Webb University. For more information, please see Copyright and Publishing Info. Rhetorical Demagoguery:An Exploration of Trump’s and Hitler’s Rise to PowerAn Honors ThesisPresented toThe University Honors ProgramGardner-Webb UniversityFall 2023byTanner HorneiiAccepted by the Honors Faculty___________________________________ ___________________________________Dr. Amato, Thesis Advisor Dr. Wilson Hawkins, Director of Univ. Honors___________________________________ ___________________________________Dr. Meredith Rowe, Honors Committee Dr. Elizabeth Amato, Honors Committee___________________________________ ___________________________________Dr. Angelina Smith, Honors Committee Dr. Abby Garlock. Honors CommitteeiiiDedicationI dedicate this to my mother, Emile Horne. She taught me what it means to strive for excellence.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEDedication ………………………………………………………………………………… iiiAbstract …………………………………………………………………………………… vCHAPTER1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 7a. Literature Review …………………………………………………………. 92. Defining Demagoguery……………………………………………………………. 12a. Establishing Credibility …………………………………………………… 163. Playing With Fire …………………………………………………………………. 19a. Inflaming Nationalism …..……………………………………………….. 22b. Blazing Truths ………………………...………………………………….. 28c. Scorching Conclusions …………………………………………………… 354. Lurking In The Shadows ………...……………………………………………….. 40a. Shadows of Prosperity …………………………..……………………….. 43b. Shrouded Partisanship ………………………..………………………….. 495. Concluding Insights …………...…………………………………………………. 56vABSTRACTRHETORICAL DEMAGOGUERY:AN EXPLORATION OF TRUMP’S AND HITLER’S RISE TO POWERByTanner HorneBachelors of Political ScienceGardner-Webb UniversityFall 2023While many scholars have examined the rhetoric of President Donald Trump and AdolfHitler individually, there is a void of scholarly work that highlights the similarities betweenthe two leaders’ use of grandiloquent language to stoke the passions of their perspective nations.In the past one hundred years, rhetoric and propaganda have been employed to push politicalagendas that are divisive and dangerous. Trump’s incendiary vocabulary–“enemy of the people,”“vermin,” “retribution,” etc., employed frequently throughout his campaign and presidency, inmany ways echoes Hitler's speeches and declarations. While their political strategies ultimatelydiffered greatly, a close analysis of their speeches, transcripts, and broadcasts reveals comparablevilanguage styles and rhetoric that have implicit meanings that influence audiences/supporters andresult in direct ramifications. The similarities of their styles –written and spoken– are readilyapparent and, therefore, seamlessly permit analysis.This study argues that Trump and Hitler ascended to power in very similar ways, butprimarily through a variety of rhetorical exploitations and appeals. To corroborate this claim, thiswork will dissect historical events, speeches, and actions associated with each leader and theirrespective time and circumstances. The research suggests that both leaders relied on assertionsthat positioned them as outsiders; and each boldly claimed, as outsiders, only they could fix abroken and corrupt government. Additionally, an explosion of misinformation and propagandabecame paramount to maintaining power and control. This work intends to contribute to thehistorical and political conversation regarding rhetoric, and its relation to obtaining andpreserving power.7CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONOn June 16th, 2015, New York businessman Donald J. Trump irrevocably changed thelandscape of American politics by descending a golden escalator in Trump Tower and declaringhis presidency with remarks peppered with half-truths and hate speech.1 Trump boldly declaredAmerica had lost its seat at the top of the food chain, the age-old dream of opportunity andprosperity had died, and only he could right the trajectory of the declining economy and reclaimAmerica’s status as a superpower.2 He went on to claim that “[t]he U.S. has become a dumpingground for everybody else’s problems,” and he would do what no one else had ever daredbefore–build a wall at the southern border to keep out criminals and rapists.3 This introductoryspeech, which provoked shock and awe among political scholars and everyday Americans alike,would pave the way for an onslaught of racial slurs and inflammatory remarks over the next sixyears, setting apart Trump’s presidency and endangering American democracy like never before.Less than two months after the 2016 presidential inauguration, when Trump began asking votersto raise their right hand and pledge support to him, political commentators and average citizenswould compare his antics and ever-increasing rhetoric to another world leader who began hisreign much the same way.44 Jeremy Diamond and Eugene Scott, “Trump Asks Backers to Swear Their Support, Vows to Broaden Torture Laws| CNN Politics,” CNN, March 5, 2016,https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/05/politics/donald-trump-florida-pledge-torture/index.html.3 IBID.2 IBID.1 TIME Staff, “Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech,” Time, June 16, 2015,https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/.8Adolf Hitler preyed on German nationalism when he became the leader of post-warWorld War I Germany. With pride in country and a promise of renewal, Hitler stoked Germanfires with his elegant rhetoric. However, impassioned speeches soon became an inherentoverflow of blame and hate-filled messaging aimed at Jews and any other party he believed wasresponsible for Germany’s colossal losses following WWI. “Heil Hitler,” they would chant, withone arm raised in the air with a straightened hand– “Heil Hitler.”5 This gesture was soondemanded of all Nazi and government officials and, with a few exceptions, the entire Germanpopulation.6 Hitler craved obedience and servitude, and making this salute mandatory allowedhim to flex his power. He demanded unwavering loyalty, and any sign of dissent was harshlypunished. In time, this salute replaced ordinary German greetings and salutations, becoming theprimary and expected mode of acknowledgment.7 This gesture became a symbol of the Naziregime and the cult of personality surrounding Hitler.Hiter’s ultimate macabre claim to fame would become the genocide of millions of Jews,homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and anyone else who did not fit the profile of a blond-hairedblue-eyed perfect German. Formally known as The Holocaust, approximately 11 millionindividuals– whose religion, race, or sexuality were deemed inappropriate– were tortured, raped,and killed by the Nazis at the command of one individual, dictator, and demagogue– AdolfHitler.8 While many were targeted, there was an extreme emphasis on the extermination of Jews.Hitler’s radical hate for Jews was explicit and left no room for interpretation. After all, he8 “The Holocaust: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans,” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, June22, 2017, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/holocaust.7 IBID.6 Torbjörn Lundmark, “Tales of HI and Bye: Greeting and Parting Rituals around the World,” Amazon, 2010,https://www.amazon.com/Tales-Hi-Bye-Greeting-Parting/dp/0521117542.5 Tilman Allert and Jefferson S. Chase, The Hitler Salute: On the Meaning of a Gesture (New York, New York:Picado, 2009).9ordered the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”9 To achieve his mission, Hitlerdemanded the construction of concentration camps throughout Europe. This terrible reality wasonly possible by Hitler’s ingenious ploy of rhetorical demagoguery throughout his politicalcareer. An almost impossible element to avoid, anti-semitism, xenophobia, and racism becameparamount to Hitler’s mission of galvanizing the irrationality of Europeans.10While this examination of both Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump does bear somesimilarities between the two men and their political agenda, Trump’s presidency did not comeclose to the level of atrocity that Hitler subjected upon Western Europe. America in 2016 andGermany in 1933 were in similar positions of hypernationalism and disenchantment with thestatus quo. Their respective citizens wanted change and were actively searching for leaders whowere bold and innovative in their approach to national and foreign policy. While Germany wasembattled and struggling to recover from their losses, making them an easy target for Hitler’smanipulation and brainwashing, America was steadfast in its democratic ideals. After four yearsof failing to follow political conventions and countless accusations of wrongdoing, the Americanpeople, with a record 81 million votes, voted Trump out of office.LITERATURE REVIEWThe exploration of the rhetoric employed by two influential figures, Adolf Hitler andDonald Trump, has been a subject of scholarly inquiry, delving into historical contexts, rhetoricalstrategies, and ethical considerations. Scholars like Ian Kershaw and Allan Bullock haveprovided insights into the circumstances that paved the way for Hitler's rise, emphasizing the10 Dieter D. Hartmann, “Anti-Semitism and the Appeal of Nazism,” Political Psychology 5, no. 4 (1984),https://doi.org/10.2307/3791234.9 Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.10economic turmoil and post-World War I sentiments in Germany.11 Analyzing Hitler's speeches,works such as Jeffrey Herf's (2006) "The Jewish Enemy" sheds light on the anti-Semitic natureof his rhetoric and the emotional resonance he sought to evoke.12Turning to contemporary politics, Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Kaltwasser (2017) and PippaNorris and Ronald Inglehart (2019) have scrutinized the populist rhetoric of Donald Trump.13Their analyses encompass Trump's communication strategies, including the utilization of socialmedia and the framing of issues in a populist context. These studies provide insights into thecultural and economic factors that contributed to Trump's appeal, emphasizing the resonance ofhis verbosity among specific segments of the American electorate.Adding an ethical dimension to the discussion, scholars also engage with the respectivemoral implications of Hitler's and Trump's rhetoric. In this camp, scholars question the impact ondemocratic norms, social cohesion, and the potential erosion of institutional safeguards. Thismultifaceted exploration contributes to a nuanced understanding of political rhetoric'scomplexities and its influence on public perception and societal dynamics. Future research in thisfield holds the potential to further illuminate the continuities and discontinuities in the rhetoricaltactics employed by demagogic leaders across different historical and cultural contexts.This study will argue that Trump and Hitler ascended to power in very similar ways, butprimarily through a variety of rhetorical exploitations and appeals. To corroborate this claim, thiswork will rhetorically dissect historical events, speeches, and actions associated with each leaderand their respective country. Specifically, this comparative analysis will dissect Hitler’s Mein13 Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Populism a Very Short Introduction (Johanneshov: MTM, 2019);Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. CambridgeUniversity Press.12 Jeffrey Herf, 1947-. The Jewish Enemy Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.11 Ian Kershaw. “Hitler, 1889-1936 : Hubris,” New York :W.W. Norton, 2000; Alan Bullock, 1914-2004. 1961.Hitler, a Study in Tyranny. New York, Bantam Books.11Kampf and Speech to Reichstag in 1939 and Trump’s January 6th and 2020 State of the Unionspeeches. The research suggests that both leaders relied on assertions that positioned them asoutsiders; and each boldly claimed, as outsiders, only they could fix a broken and corruptgovernment. Additionally, an explosion of misinformation and propaganda became paramount tomaintaining power and control. This work intends to contribute to the historical and politicalconversation regarding rhetoric, and its relation to obtaining and preserving power.12CHAPTER TWODEFINING DEMAGOGUERYAdolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, andCleon all have one thing in common: they are all considered demagogues. The term demagogueoriginated in ancient Greece during the fifth century B.C.E. –about the time of Cleon. The termdemagogue translates to “leader of the people.”14 Since Cleon’s leadership, the meaning andconnotation of demagogue has changed significantly. Today, a demagogue is defined as anyindividual who “appeals to [the people’s] greed, fear, and hatred” only by “stirring up theirfeelings… and leading them to action despite [any reasonable] considerations which [may]weigh against it."15 The term once used to convey one’s unnatural rhetorical superpower, is nowmost often used as a pejorative term.Over two thousand years ago, Cleon aimed to capitalize on and appeal to the Athenians’hatred for Spartans during the Peloponnesian War.16 Despite the Spartans ' desire for peace,Cleon used righteous anger and the desire for change to initiate aggressive war maneuvers.17 As aresult, Cleon was appropriately deemed the first demagogue of political history. Never beforehad Athens encountered a leader who sought to lead the city by arousing their passions andappealing to their prejudices. Cleon, like any politician of his time, wanted his convictions to beheard before all members of the assembly. Before the Assembly, which met forty times a year onthe Pnyx Hill, Cleon voiced his opinions in an unfamiliar Athenian fashion.18 Time and time18 IBID.17 IBID.16 The Blue Review and Admin, “Demagogues and Democracy,” The Blue Review, June 2, 2021,https://www.boisestate.edu/bluereview/demagogues-and-democracy/.15 Justin Gustainis, “Demagoguery and Political Rhetoric: A Review of the Literature1,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly20, no. 2 (1990): 155–61, https://doi.org/10.1080/02773949009390878.14 Sigmund Neumann, “The Rule of the Demagogue,” American Sociological Review 3, no. 4 (1938),https://doi.org/10.2307/2083896.13again, Cleon employed his rhetorical skills to promote policies that advanced his ownself-interests. Cleon naturally subscribed to demagogic behavior; disparaging intellectuals,belittling critics, and lashing out at adversaries. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, even claimedCleon “used abusive language and spoke with his cloak girt around him, while all the others usedto speak in proper dress and manner.”19 Aristotle highlights Cleon’s intentional language, callingattention to his appearance– a ploy to connect to the people before him. A conventional sign ofrespect and civility was deliberately disrespected, calling attention to the inherent elitism. As aresult of Cleon’s demagogic reign, a definition of demagoguery is possible. Simply, demagoguesappeal to their audience’s irrationalities, passions, and prejudices by attacking and producingopposing groups born into hate, all in an effort to elicit an emotional response.As an expert in manipulating language, a demagogue employs a number of rhetoricalstrategies–consciously and subconsciously. Demagogues understand how to work the threecentral aspects of rhetorical argument – logos (the logic that matches the listener’s worldviewand logic), ethos (the credibility and character of a speaker), and pathos (the listener’s emotions).However, it is the most well-versed and practiced demagogues who focus their energy onpathos– or manipulating the emotions of their audience. In an attempt to fill their crowd withrighteous indignation, a demagogue will masquerade the fear and anger they incite with a senseof righteousness. As a result, the audience begins to believe their next actions are justified andlogical. In reality, what seems like logos and ethos to the audience is fundamentally based on theartful manipulation of pathos by the demagogue, shrouded in a facade of smoke and mirrors.Cleon, Trump, and Hitler alike, capitalized on their respective rhetorical abilities andtheir unique approach to inciting righteous indignation within their audience. For example,19 The Blue Review and Admin, “Demagogues and Democracy,” The Blue Review, June 2, 2021,https://www.boisestate.edu/bluereview/demagogues-and-democracy/.14Trump in his 2015 presidential announcement speech claimed, “When Mexico sends itspeople…they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problemswith us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists.”20 In this section of hisspeech, Trump introduces the negative impacts owed to the absence of a southern border. Heskillfully employs rhetoric that plays on the fears and concerns of his audience, utilizing thedemagogue's playbook of appealing to emotions rather than presenting a nuanced and fact-basedargument. Trump's choice of language is deliberate and provocative, creating a sense of urgencyand alarm. By associating immigrants with "lots of problems," "drugs," and "crime," he taps intothe fear and prejudice of his audience.21 This type of inflammatory rhetoric not only stirs upemotions but also serves to create a common enemy, a key tactic employed by demagoguesthroughout history. Furthermore, Trump's manipulation of pathos is evident in his assertion thatimmigrants are not only bringing problems but are specifically "rapists."22 This extremecharacterization is designed to evoke strong emotional reactions, tapping into the deepest fearsand concerns of his audience.Trump skillfully uses pathos to override logical and ethicalconsiderations, creating a narrative that resonates emotionally with the listeners.Similarly, Hitler's address at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934 is an inherent example ofdemagoguery as it relies heavily on Hitler’s ability to skillfully employ demagogic techniques tomanipulate the emotions of the masses. In his speech, Hitler framed the Nazi regime as the saviorof Germany, appealing to the collective pride and wounded national identity of the audience.23He strategically used pathos by emphasizing the historical grievances and humiliations that23 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Nürnberg Rally." Encyclopedia Britannica, December 10, 2007.https://www.britannica.com/event/Nurnberg-Rally.22 IBID.21 IBID.20 TIME Staff, “Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech,” Time, June 16, 2015,https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/.15Germany had endured, fostering a sense of victimhood among the German people. Hitlerportrayed the Nazi Party as the only force capable of restoring Germany's greatness, therebyexploiting the deep-seated emotions of resentment and longing for retribution.24 Moreover, Hitleradeptly employed scapegoating, a hallmark of demagoguery, by blaming specific groups forGermany's perceived decline.25 He targeted Jews, communists, and other marginalizedcommunities as the supposed enemies responsible for the nation's troubles. By creating acommon enemy, Hitler sought to consolidate support and divert attention from the regime's ownshortcomings.In terms of rhetorical strategies, Hitler used powerful and charismatic delivery,emphasizing not only the content of his message but also the emotional impact of his words. Hisgestures, tone, and dramatic pauses were carefully choreographed to elicit strong emotionalresponses from the audience.26 By doing so, Hitler aimed to create a bond between himself andthe masses, positioning himself as the embodiment of their collective will and aspirations.The comparison between Trump's and Hitler's speeches underscores the enduringeffectiveness of demagoguery in democracy. Whether in ancient Greece, 20th-century Europe, orcontemporary politics, demagogues exploit human emotions, fears, and prejudices to securepower and advance their agendas. The parallels between different demagogues and eras highlightthe importance of understanding these patterns to safeguard democratic principles and protectagainst manipulation in political discourse.26IBID.25IBID.24 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Nürnberg Rally." Encyclopedia Britannica, December 10, 2007.https://www.britannica.com/event/Nurnberg-Rally.16ESTABLISHING CREDIBILITYThe projected credibility, authenticity, and character of a demagogue determines thetraction of one’s movement and ability to influence and control. Demagogues, to each their own,crave loyalty. As a result, the rhetorical strategy ethos is naturally employed to capture andmaintain the confidence of their supporters through the perceptive lens of credibility. Once asemblance of credibility is established, a demagogue's perceived trustworthiness privileges theleader to sway public opinion, manipulate emotion, and implement controversial policies–without facing too much resistance– that resonate with the party’s vision.27 Furthermore, thestrategic establishment of credibility through ethos helps demagogues maintain a veneer ofrespectability, even when their rhetoric or policies may lack substance or ethical grounding.28Credibility acts as a shield against scrutiny, allowing demagogues to deflect criticism andmaintain their hold on power. This is particularly significant in the face of challenges orcontroversies, as a credible demagogue can weather opposition more effectively, sustaining theallegiance of their followers.Ethos plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception of a demagogue's character. Byprojecting an image of competence, sincerity, and moral authority, demagogues can create apersonal connection with their audience.29 This connection fosters a sense of identification andloyalty, blurring the line between objective analysis and emotional attachment. As a result,individuals may be more inclined to dismiss contradictory information or engage in motivatedreasoning, further reinforcing the demagogue's influence.30 In the context of demagoguery, where30 IBID.29 Barry McNamara, “The Power of Friendships.” News &amp; Events & Monmouth College, September 17, 2020.https://www.monmouthcollege.edu/live/news/2410-the-power-of-friendships.28 IBID.27 Brian Eastwood, “When the ‘lying Demagogue’ Is the Authentic Candidate,” MIT Sloan, April 17, 2018,https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/when-lying-demagogue-authentic-candidate.17the manipulation of truth and distortion of facts is not uncommon, ethos becomes a powerful toolfor shaping reality. A demagogue with established credibility can frame narratives, redefinenorms, and control the discourse, influencing public opinion on a broad scale. This control overinformation is integral to the demagogue's ability to consolidate power and implement theiragenda, regardless of its alignment with the broader public interest.Hitler strategically used his own story as a symbol of national pride, emphasizing histransformation from an Austrian to a German citizen.31 By presenting his journey as a microcosmof Germany's collective struggles and aspirations, he appealed to a sense of shared identityamong the German people.32 This narrative resonated strongly in a country grappling with thepunitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles and economic turmoil. His credibility was built on anarrative that positioned him as a charismatic leader who understood the struggles of the Germanpeople.33 Hitler projected an image of authority, often using militaristic and nationalist symbolsto reinforce his connection to the nation. Additionally, his charismatic oratory skills played acrucial role in building credibility. Hitler's impassioned speeches often referenced his personalchallenges and triumphs, creating an emotional connection with his audience and fostering aperception of authenticity and sincerity.34 His political strategists carefully crafted an image thathighlighted his rise from obscurity to leadership, using propaganda and staged publicappearances to disseminate this narrative.Similarly, Trump's background as a reality television personality contributed to his adeptcommunication skills and media presence. This, combined with his unfiltered and often34 IBID.33 IBID.32 IBID.31 Smithsonian Magazine, “Hitler Created a Fictional Persona to Recast Himself as Germany’s Savior,”Smithsonian.com, January 10, 2018,https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hitler-created-fictional-persona-to-recast-himself-as-germanys-savior-180967790/.18unconventional use of social media, allowed him to engage directly with the public, creating aperception of authenticity and immediacy. The populist rhetoric he employed, emphasizing theconcerns of everyday Americans and addressing issues overlooked by the political elite,endeared him to a demographic that felt marginalized and unheard.35 In contrast to establishedpolitical elites, Trump strategically presented himself as an alternative, leveraging his outsiderstatus to tap into the skepticism and distrust many held toward the conventional norms ofWashington. His "America First" narrative, prioritizing national interests and sovereignty,resonated with a sense of patriotism, appealing to those who believed domestic concerns hadbeen neglected in favor of global interests.36Both Hitler and Trump utilized populist rhetoric, emphasizing a direct connection with"the people" against perceived elites or enemies. Their speeches often contained emotionalappeals, promising to address the grievances of their followers. This emotional resonancecontributed to the establishment of ethos, as people began to see them as champions whounderstood and represented their concerns. Furthermore, both figures were adept at controllingthe narrative, using media and communication strategies to shape public perception. Hitler,through propaganda and mass rallies, crafted an image of himself as the savior of Germany.Trump, using social media and a reality television background, created a persona that resonatedwith a significant portion of the American electorate.36 IBID.35 Philip Rucker and David A. Fahrenthold, “Donald Trump Positions Himself as the Voice of ‘The Forgotten Menand Women,’” The Washington Post, April 11, 2023,https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-speech-at-republican-national-convention-trump-to-paint-dire-picture-of-america/2016/07/21/418f9ae6-4fad-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html.19CHAPTER THREEPLAYING WITH FIREJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in his dissenting opinion in Gitlow v. New York,artistically authored the famous quote, “[e]loquence may set fire to reason.”37 A quote bound togo down in history, Holmes highlighted the consequences and extremely volatile nature ofrhetoric: rhetoric incites opportunity. Pinpointing the most significant and consequential speechof a demagogue’s rhetoric can be quite challenging. With a multi-pronged approach, dividing theresearch into navigable yet distinct divisions, this work asserts a rhetorical culmination boilsdown to a demagogue’s most divisive rhetorical assertion of nationalism, media, party politics,economics, governance, and transfer of power.After Trump’s loss on November 3rd, 2020, erroneous claims of election fraud echoedthroughout America– a movement charged by Trump’s rhetoric. Trump loyalists, galvanized byhis language, darted to the battleground states’ legislatures to “[s]top the vote” and “[s]top thecount.”38 With little traction, seemingly stalled in his efforts, Trump turned to his Vice PresidentMike Pense demanding, “Pence…send it back to the states to recertify, and we becomepresident.”39 As the president of the Senate, the acting vice president maintains a significantamount of power. Amongst the many powers delegated to the vice president, even as thepresident of the senate, no power to reject the certification of an election exists. Nonetheless,39 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.38Andy Goodman and Andrew Weissmann. “An Overlooked January 6 Charge: The ‘Stop the Count’ Scheme.” JustSecurity, July 30, 2023.https://www.justsecurity.org/87435/an-overlooked-january-6-charge-the-stop-the-count-scheme/.37 Edward Sanford and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652. 1924.Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep268652/.20Trump, on December 19th, aware of the impending verification of election results,unapologetically announced a “[b]ig protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”40As the clock struck 12 p.m. on January 6th, 2021, Trump climbed out of the presidentialmotorcade to address a massive crowd of supporters and their shared opinions on the stolenelection.41 In a desperate yet obvious attempt to crush the will and constitutionally protectedconcept of a peaceful transfer of power, hoping to disturb the election verification ceremony,Trump conveniently positioned his protest a few blocks from. With mere words, in front of10,000 enraged supporters, Trump delivered a speech, barely an hour long, which would lead toone of the most horrific and despicable attacks on American democracy.42 Unquestionably amomentous occasion in history, January 6th is the culminating event of Trump’s presidency.However, Trump’s speech given only minutes before the irrevocable insurrection remains aparamount variable in connecting Trump, demagoguery, and Hitler.Across the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 70 years before, Hitler mounted a similarposition of power. As the dictator of Germany, Hitler fixed his army’s attention upon theperceived enemy of the state– the Jews. However, before Hitler’s reign, the Weimar Republicgovernment operated as a parliamentary republic– a system of government where a parliament, achancellor, and a president coexist within a political structure.43 However, during Hitler’s rise topower, marked by illegitimate and questionable circumstances, his lust for power grewinsatiable. Despite extreme hesitation by President Hindenburg, even denying Hitler’s request43 For those who are unfamiliar, the Weimar Republic, officially known as the German Reich, was a historical periodof Germany from 9 November 1918 to 23 March 1933, during which it was a constitutional federal republic for thefirst time in history.42 Lisa Masacro, Ben Fox, and Lolita C. Baldor, “‘Clear the Capitol,’ Pence Pleaded: Timeline of Riot Shows,” APNews, April 30, 2021,https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-army-racial-injustice-riots-only-on-ap-480e95d9d075a0a946e837c3156cdcb9.41 Marshall Cohen and Avery Lotz, “The January 6 Insurrection: Minute-by-Minute | CNN Politics,” CNN, July 29,2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/10/politics/jan-6-us-capitol-riot-timeline/index.html.40 IBID.21twice, Hitler was appointed as Chancellor of Germany in 1933– uniquely positioning Hitler assecond in command.44 Soon, bad health befell President Hindenburg, resulting in his death inAugust of 1934.45 President Hindenburg’s death marked the fall of the Weimar Republic and therise of Nazi Germany when Hitler assumed the most powerful position in Germany; a tragedy forEurope, a victory for Hitler, and a death sentence for any individual with a Jewish identity.The culminating essence of Hitler’s reign was revealed at the Reichstag in 1939.46 Hitlerboldly yet unapologetically announced his mission and purpose, as leader of Nazi Germany, wasto ensure “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”47 As the wheels of time turnedinexorably, the year 1941 witnessed an intensification of Hitler's nefarious mission, wherein hisprejudiced ideologies metamorphosed into a systematic and horrifying mass genocide targetingthe Jewish population.48 Hitler's speech at the Reichstag laid the ideological groundwork for whatwould later manifest as the Holocaust. It served as the catalyst that propelled his radical visioninto ruthless action. The unambiguous call for the annihilation of the Jewish people provided achilling ideological mandate that reverberated throughout Nazi Germany, galvanizing hisfollowers and fostering an environment conducive to the implementation of genocidal policies.This lamentable chapter in history underscores the gravity of the atrocities perpetrated under theauspices of Hitler's leadership, casting a somber shadow on the annals of humanity. Thesubsequent years bore witness to the brutal transformation of Hitler's rhetoric into a horrifyingreality. The intensified persecution of the Jewish population, marked by mass deportations,48 Robert Wilde, “Hitler’s Rise to Power: A Timeline,” ThoughtCo, January 29, 2020,https://www.thoughtco.com/hitlers-rise-to-power-timeline-1221353.47 Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.46 The Reichstag served as the home of the German parliament until 1933 when the building was badly damaged ina fire.45 IBID.44 Robert Wilde, “Hitler’s Rise to Power: A Timeline,” ThoughtCo, January 29, 2020,https://www.thoughtco.com/hitlers-rise-to-power-timeline-1221353.22concentration camps, and ultimately, mass extermination, unfolded as a direct consequence ofthe sentiments expressed in that fateful Reichstag address. The Holocaust, with its unparalleledhuman tragedy, was the tragic culmination of Hitler's fanatical vision, resulting in the sufferingand loss of millions of innocent lives– a true and undeniable agenda of a demagogue.To refer back to Justice Holmes, “[e]very idea is an incitement.”49 Hitler and Trumptransformed their respective ideas into nationwide missions by employing obscene rhetoricreliant on falsehoods, emotional draws, and irrationality. Despite the significant time gap, thelanguage exercised by both leaders bears a remarkable amount of similarities. Each leadercapitalized on their  ability to associate themselves as outsiders, maintained a staunch anti-pressassociation in their quests for power, and relied on the loyalty of their sympathizers. As a result,their missions were quite successful. Each speech, inciting a reaction from its audience, groundsitself in divisive rhetorical themes of nationalism, media, party politics, economics, andgovernance. Therefore, this section “Playing with Fire” aims to determine any specific andsimilar aspects of Trump’s January 6th speech and Hitler’s Reichstag speech.INFLAMING NATIONALISMNationalism, a potent political ideology, is defined by a strong attachment to one's nation,often to the exclusion of others, and can manifest through cultural, ethnic, or civic pride.50However, when wielded by a demagogue like Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump, nationalism canhave detrimental effects on society. Nationalism breeds divisiveness by exploiting nationalisticfervor to vilify minorities or political opponents, fostering an "us versus them" mentality that50 Kimberly Amadeo, “Nationalism,” The Balance, June 27, 2022,https://www.thebalancemoney.com/nationalism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4149524.49 Edward Sanford and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652.1924. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep268652/.23fractures communities.51 Simultaneously fueling xenophobia and racism, demagoguesmanipulate nationalist sentiments to scapegoat marginalized groups, stoking fear and prejudicefor political gain. Nationalism facilitates authoritarianism, enabling demagogues to justify theerosion of democratic institutions and civil liberties under the guise of protecting nationalinterests.52 Moreover, nationalism can spur aggression and militarism, as demagogues use it tojustify expansionist agendas or military interventions, risking conflict and instability.53 By itsvery nature nationalism enables historical revisionism: demagogues selectively portray thenation's past to glorify its achievements while downplaying its darker aspects, hinderingreconciliation and perpetuating injustice.54 While Hitler's extreme ethnonationalism led togenocide and world war, Trump's brand of nationalism, though less extreme, has raised concernsabout democratic erosion and social cohesion in the United States through divisive rhetoric andpolicy actions.55Donald Trump's political discourse throughout his January 6th speech is punctuated by aseries of powerful statements that underscore his nationalist agenda and often carry racialundertones. Throughout his speech, Trump frequently touts his administration's achievements,proclaiming, "We did things that nobody ever thought possible.56" This assertion serves to bolsterhis image as a transformative leader, rallying support around his vision of American greatness.Moreover, Trump often vilifies his opponents, particularly those on the left, accusing them ofcensorship and discrimination, as exemplified by his statement, "And just like the radical left56 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.55 Ethnonationalism refers to a type of nationalism where national identity is primarily based on ethnicity.54 Barbara Krasner, Historical Revisionism (New York, NY: Greenhaven Publishing LLC, 2020).53 IBID.52 IBID.51 Darya Sinusoid, “The Problem with Nationalism: Us versus Them,” Shortform Books, April 5, 2021,https://www.shortform.com/blog/problem-with-nationalism/.24tries to blacklist you on social media."57 This rhetoric not only reinforces his nationalist narrativebut also paints his adversaries as threats to freedom of speech and expression.Trump's language on election integrity often incorporates allegations of widespread voterfraud and corruption. He asserts, "In no state is there any question or effort made to verify theidentity, citizenship, residency or eligibility of the votes cast," implying a systematic failure touphold the integrity of the electoral process.58 Trump's language here is accusatory, suggestingthat his political opponents, particularly Democrats, are complicit in allowing voter fraud tooccur. He goes further to claim, "It is also widely understood that the voter rolls are crammed fullof non-citizens, felons and people who have moved out of state and individuals who areotherwise ineligible to vote. Yet Democrats oppose every effort to clean up their voter rolls. Theydon't want to clean them up. They're loaded.59" These statements not only cast doubt on thelegitimacy of election outcomes but also perpetuate racial stereotypes, particularly regardingnon-citizens and felons, who are often disproportionately from minority communities. (FN)Trump's discourse frequently revolves around immigration, a topic he uses to galvanizesupport for his nationalist agenda. He asserts, "If we allow this group of people to illegally takeover our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there isillegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information," framing immigrationas an existential threat to the nation.60 Trump's language here is inflammatory, suggesting thatimmigrants pose a danger to the country's sovereignty and security. Similarly, Trump's emphasison border security and the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border reinforces hisnationalist narrative, portraying himself as a defender of American interests against external60 IBID.59 IBID.58 IBID.57 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.25threats. He declares, "You know, the wall is built. We're doing record numbers at the wall. Now,they want to take down the wall," invoking nationalist pride and framing opposition to hispolicies as unpatriotic.61Similarly, Trump often appeals to a sense of national pride and unity, particularly in hisdiscussions of American exceptionalism. He proclaims, "We have overwhelming pride in thisgreat country and we have it deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend andpreserve the government of the people, by the people and for the people," invoking imagery ofpatriotism and shared identity.62 Trump's language here is emotive, tapping into feelings of prideand solidarity among his supporters. Additionally, Trump frequently highlights hisadministration's efforts to improve election security, positioning himself as a champion ofdemocratic values. He asserts, "I think one of our great achievements will be election security.Because nobody, until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were," portrayinghimself as a reformer fighting against a corrupt political establishment.63Adolf Hitler's Reichstag speech of 1939 stands as a masterclass in nationalist rhetoric,meticulously crafted to galvanize support for his regime while vilifying perceived enemies,particularly Jews. Through a series of carefully chosen quotes, Hitler appealed to the GermanVolk's sense of national pride, victimhood, and unity, all while promoting a deeply antisemiticagenda. In this analysis, we will dissect Hitler's speech, examining his use of language andrhetoric to appeal to nationalism with an unmistakable antisemitic undertone.Hitler began his speech by asserting, "Germany has merely realized the right toself-determination."64 This statement aimed to justify Germany's actions as legitimate assertions64Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.63 IBID.62 IBID.61 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.26of national sovereignty, appealing to the Volk's sense of pride and autonomy. By framingGermany's actions as exercises of self-determination, Hitler sought to garner support for hisnationalist agenda, positioning himself as the defender of German interests. Hitler emphasizedthe notion of a unified German Volk, stating, "we have before us today a form of representationof the German Volk which can claim to be a truly constituent body."65 Here, Hitler invoked theconcept of Volksgemeinschaft, or "people's community," to foster a sense of collective identityand purpose among the German people. By portraying himself as the leader of a united Volk,Hitler sought to consolidate his power and rally support for his regime. However, woventhroughout Hitler's speech was a pervasive antisemitic narrative, in which Jews were portrayedas the ultimate enemies of the German Volk. Hitler declared, "Above all, it is international Jewrywhich seeks thereby to gratify its thirst for vengeance and its insatiable hunger for profit,"invoking antisemitic stereotypes about Jewish greed and manipulation.66 By scapegoating Jewsfor Germany's perceived woes, Hitler sought to deflect blame and rally support for his regimethrough the demonization of a common enemy.Hitler portrayed Germany as the victim of aggression from the West, particularly Britainand America. He stated, "The rest of the world has looted Germany throughout the pastone-and-a-half decades, has burdened it with enormous debt payments," painting Germany asunjustly targeted by Western powers.67 Hitler used adjectives such as "hysteric" and "shaming" todescribe the tactics employed by Germany's adversaries, further reinforcing the narrative ofvictimhood and injustice.68 In a similar fashion, Hitler's speech also contained elements ofmilitarism and defiance, with references to Germany's struggle for survival against external68 IBID.67 IBID.66 IBID.65Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.27threats. He proclaimed, "We fight a truly gigantic struggle to which we have dedicated the entireforce and energy of our Volk," positioning Germany as engaged in a righteous struggle againstexternal aggressors.69 Hitler's use of adjectives such as "irrational" and "capitalist" to describe themotivations of Germany's enemies served to demonize them and justify Germany's militarizationefforts.70Additionally, Hitler addressed the issue of Jewish immigration, framing it as a threat tothe nation's security and integrity. He declared, "If the Jews should once again succeed in incitingthe nations to war, the result will not be the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewishrace in Europe."71 In this statement, Hitler conflated Jewish immigration with the specter of warand portrayed Jews as agents of chaos and destruction. By linking Jewish immigration to broadergeopolitical concerns, Hitler sought to justify his regime's anti-Semitic policies and galvanizesupport for his nationalist agenda. Hitler even relied on his appeal of economic nationalism, withreferences to Germany's economic struggles and the need to strengthen the country's defenses.He stated, "the economy of the present Reich hinges on its external security. It is best to arrive atthis realization early rather than too late."72 Here, Hitler emphasized the importance of nationalsecurity in safeguarding Germany's economic prosperity, appealing to the Volk's sense ofself-preservation and survival.The speeches of both Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump stand as chilling testaments to thepower of nationalist rhetoric in shaping public sentiment and mobilizing support for authoritarianagendas. Despite the temporal and contextual disparities between their respective leaderships,Hitler and Trump demonstrated remarkable parallels in their manipulation of nationalist72 IBID.71 IBID.70 IBID.69Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.28sentiments. By invoking themes of victimhood, unity, demonization of perceived enemies, andeconomic nationalism, both leaders sought to cultivate a fervent allegiance to their visions ofnational greatness. Their speeches serve as stark reminders of the dangers inherent in exploitingnationalism for political gain, highlighting the potential for fear, hatred, and bigotry to permeatepublic discourse and threaten the fabric of democratic societies. As we reflect on the lessons ofhistory, it is imperative to remain vigilant against the allure of demagoguery and to uphold thevalues of tolerance, inclusivity, and respect for human dignity in the face of divisive rhetoric.BLAZING TRUTHSThe manipulation of media and public opinion has been a potent tool for demagogues toassert and consolidate power. Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump both exploited the media withremarkable efficacy to propagate their agendas. Central to their demagogic strategies was therelentless discrediting of the media in order to cast doubt on its credibility and integrity. UnderJoseph Goebbels's direction, Hitler's regime famously used propaganda machinery to disseminatea narrative that vilified dissenting voices and marginalized independent journalism. (FN) As aprime example, Goebbel said himself, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, peoplewill eventually come to believe it.”73 Goebbels's quote underscores the demagogues' reliance onrepetition and the amplification of falsehoods to manipulate the public. By continuouslydisseminating lies on a large scale, they aimed to erode trust in reliable sources of information,thereby solidifying their own authority and control over the narrative. Similarly, Trump and hispolitical surrogates attacked mainstream media outlets and labeled them as "fake news" and "theenemy of the people" with the aim to erode public trust in journalistic institutions.74 By74 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.73 Randall Bytwerk, “False Nazi Quotations,” German Propaganda Archive.29undermining the press, both leaders sought to control the narrative, shape public opinion, andconsolidate their authority. Understanding the parallels and divergences in how Hitler and Trumpleveraged demagoguery underscores the critical importance of vigilance against such tactics.In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Donald Trump's rhetoric reached a crescendo,marked by a barrage of attacks on the media. For example, one of Trump’s many tweets reads,"The lamestream media has gone totally bonkers! They’ve gone totally crazy!"75 This quote,attributed to Donald Trump, reflects his derogatory attitude towards mainstream media outlets.By using the term "lamestream media," Trump dismisses these media organizations as biased orincompetent. Additionally, by accusing them of going "totally bonkers" and "totally crazy,"Trump suggests that the media's coverage of certain events or issues is irrational or exaggerated.Overall, the quote underscores Trump's strategy of undermining the credibility of traditionalmedia sources while promoting his own narrative and agenda. Employing a demagogic stylereminiscent of historical autocrats, Trump characterized the press as "fake news media," allegingtheir complicity in perpetrating what he deemed a fraudulent election.76 Through a meticulousanalysis of Trump's speeches and statements, particularly those concerning media involvement inelection fraud, unsolicited attacks on his presidency, and their role in dividing America, there areundeniable demagogic characteristics inherent to his speech. By drawing on specific words andadjectives utilized by Trump, such as "fake news," "enemy of the people," and "suppression," thecalculated nature of his assaults on the media, highlights their profound implications fordemocratic discourse and societal cohesion.7777 IBID.76 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.75 Kevin Quealy, “The Complete List of Trump’s Twitter Insults (2015-2021),” The New York Times, January 19,2021, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/19/upshot/trump-complete-insult-list.html.30Trump's disdain for the media was palpable in his assertion during his most infamousrally, mere seconds into the speech, the president eagerly announced that "the media will notshow the magnitude of [the] crowd."78 By framing the media as selective and biased in theircoverage, Trump sought to delegitimize their role as arbiters of truth and public opinion. Thistactic of undermining the credibility of the press was further evidenced when he exclaimed, "Wehave hundreds of thousands of people here and I just want them to be recognized by the fakenews media."79 However, despite Trump's claims of massive attendance, scholarly estimatesindicated a significantly smaller turnout, with only about 10,000 attendees.80 This stark contrastbetween Trump's assertions and the observed reality highlights his propensity for exaggerationand the disconnect between his rhetoric and actual events. Such discrepancies further erodedtrust in his messaging and raised questions about his credibility regarding crowd sizes and otherclaims. Trump not only sought validation from his supporters but also perpetuated the narrativeof media bias, portraying himself as a victim of their purported agenda. By aligning himself withthe people and positioning the media as adversaries misrepresenting reality or concealing thetruth, Trump fashioned a narrative where he stood as a champion of truth against a supposedlydeceitful and biased media establishment. However, in reality, it is quite the opposite: numerousfact-checks and independent analyses have consistently shown distortions and falsehoods inTrump's claims, revealing his own penchant for manipulating reality to suit his agenda.Central to Trump's demagoguery was his characterization of the media as the "singlebiggest problem" facing the nation. By labeling them as the "enemy of the people," Trump80 Lisa Masacro, Ben Fox, and Lolita C. Baldor, “‘Clear the Capitol,’ Pence Pleaded: Timeline of Riot Shows,” APNews, April 30, 2021,https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-army-racial-injustice-riots-only-on-ap-480e95d9d075a0a946e837c3156cdcb9.79 IBID.78 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.31positioned himself as a champion of the populace against a corrupt and deceitful establishment.81This slander of the press reached its peak when Trump declared, "[o]ur media is not free, it's notfair. It suppresses thought, it suppresses speech and it's become the enemy of the people."82 Suchinflammatory rhetoric not only manipulated public perception of journalistic integrity but alsofostered an environment of animosity and division, exacerbating an us vs them narrative.Trump's branding of the media as enemies of the people echoed the language of war, where suchrhetoric served to justify crackdowns on journalism and dissent. In authoritarian regimes, withsimilar structures of demagogic language, a dangerous vilification of the press posed a threat tothe very foundations of democracy, as it undermined the essential role of a free and independentmedia in holding those in power accountable and informing the public. Throughout hispresidency, Trump aimed to erode any trust in the media. By repeatedly portraying the media aspartisan actors with malicious intent, Trump fostered an environment where his articulation ofthe media as an "enemy of the people" became all too easy to accept for his supporters. Thisconcerted effort to delegitimize the media not only undermined the public's faith in objectivereporting but also served to bolster Trump's own authority and narrative. However, Trump'srhetoric extended beyond mere criticism of media practices to outright accusations of collusionand deceit. He asserted that the election was "stolen by the fake news media," insinuating theiractive participation in undermining the democratic process.83 This narrative gained tractionamong his supporters, fueling distrust and discord within American society– a chant of supportsoon followed. Moreover, Trump's insistence on the existence of widespread fraud, despite a lack83 IBID.82 IBID.81 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.32of evidence, further exacerbated tensions, as he declared, "the American people do not believethe corrupt, fake news anymore."84In his diatribes against the media, Trump decried their alleged suppression of dissentingvoices. He lamented, "now what they do is they go silent. It's called suppression and that's whathappens in a communist country."85 However, despite his claims of media suppression, Trumprarely cited specific instances or evidence to support his assertions. Instead, his accusationsremained largely unsubstantiated, relying more on rhetoric than factual examples. This pattern ofgeneralized attacks without clear evidence raised questions about the validity of his claims andhighlighted the potential for his rhetoric to manipulate public perception without basis in reality.Referring back to the quote, by equating media practices with those of totalitarian regimes,Trump sought to delegitimize their authority and undermine their ability to hold power toaccount. This narrative of media suppression served to galvanize his base and justify his attackson journalistic institutions. Furthermore, Trump's accusations of media bias extended beyondtraditional news outlets to encompass social media platforms and tech companies. He decriedtheir censorship of conservative voices, alleging a concerted effort to silence dissent and controlthe narrative. Trump's assertion that "every time I put out a tweet... I get a flag" exemplified hisperception of a coordinated effort to stifle his message and undermine his presidency.86Just 70 years before, in the tumultuous events of 1939, Adolf Hitler's demagogic rhetoricreached new heights as he utilized propaganda to shape public perception and vilify opposition,particularly targeting the media and Jewish entities. Through a meticulous examination ofHitler's speeches and declarations during this period, a clear pattern emerges, revealing his86 IBID.85 IBID.84 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.33calculated manipulation of information and his relentless attacks on those who dared to opposeor criticize his regime.In dismissing reports contrary to his narrative, such as the fictitious report of Germanmobilization allegedly forcing Czechoslovakia to mobilize its armed forces, Hitler perpetuatedfalsehoods despite official declarations to the contrary.87 This tactic aimed to undermine thecredibility of external sources and portray Germany as unjustly maligned by the internationalpress, highlighting Hitler's willingness to distort facts to suit his agenda. Moreover, Hitleradvocated for an immediate response through propaganda and press to counter perceived attackson Germany's reputation, asserting, "our propaganda and press shall answer immediately to anysuch attacks and inform the German Volk of them."88 This proactive stance aimed to control thenarrative and discredit dissenting voices, showcasing Hitler's strategic use of media manipulationto suppress opposition and rally support for his regime.Central to Hitler's demagoguery was the scapegoating of Jews and international Jewry forfermenting tensions and spreading propaganda. He vilified them as instigators of discord,accusing them of manipulating various forms of media to further their agenda, arguing “despitea bombardment of by a ‘gigantic Jewish-capitalist instigated propaganda campaign…there is nota word of truth in all these claims.”89 Desperately searching for words of relief, Hitler stated, “Ibelieve that, should we succeed in arresting the activities of the Jewish international pressagitators and their propaganda, then a reconciliation between peoples would be speedilyattained.”90 This rhetoric not only reinforced anti-Semitic sentiment but also served as ajustification for his regime's suppression of dissent and censorship of the media. In the most90 IBID.89 IBID.88 IBID.87Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.34divisive rhetorical displays yet, reserving his strongest condemnation for international Jewry,Hitler proclaimed, “[t]he days of propagandist impotence of the non-Jewish peoples are over.”91By blaming Jews for societal unrest and portraying their influence in the media as a threat topeace, Hitler sought to galvanize public opinion against Jews and justify censorship of mediaoutlets deemed critical of the regime, demonstrating Hitler's ability to exploit anti-Semiticsentiment to consolidate power.Hitler's attacks on the media extended beyond mere criticism to outright accusations ofagitation and irresponsibility. He blamed an "irresponsible press" for Europe's tensions, allegingthey spread disquiet among the populace with false alarms.92 This rhetoric aimed to underminepublic trust in independent journalism and justify censorship, showcasing Hitler's desire tocontrol the flow of information and suppress dissenting voices. Only “the struggling politicians,”“[certain] businessmen,” and “Jewry,” in a state of struggle, desperation, or financial hardship,would produce such “deranged [and] hysterical” propaganda and lies.93 By attributing thedissemination of negative information to these groups, Hitler aimed to deflect attention awayfrom his own regime's actions and onto supposed enemies of the state. This tactic not onlybolstered his authoritarian rule but also fostered a climate of fear and suspicion, furthersolidifying his grip on power.The parallels between Hitler and Trump in their attacks on the media reveal a sharedstrategy of utilizing demagoguery to undermine the credibility of independent journalism andconsolidate power. Both leaders employed rhetoric that extended beyond mere criticism tooutright accusations of agitation, irresponsibility, and even malicious intent on the part of the93 IBID.92 IBID.91 Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.],[publisher not identified], 1939.35press. By vilifying the media as organizations bound to disseminate falsehoods and inherentenemies of the state, Hitler and Trump sought to erode public trust in objective reporting andjustify censorship or control over information dissemination. Moreover, their narratives oftenscapegoated specific groups, such as Jews or perceived political opponents, as the supposedarchitects of media bias or misinformation. This manipulation of public perception throughtargeted rhetoric exemplifies the dangers of unchecked demagoguery and the imperative ofdefending press freedom and truth in the face of authoritarianism. As history has shown, attackson the media are not just assaults on the press but also assaults on democracy itself, underscoringthe critical importance of safeguarding the principles of a free and independent press in anysociety.SCORCHING CONCLUSIONSAs the dust settles on Donald J. Trump’s presidential tenure, it is imperative to undertakea comprehensive examination of his presidency, its defining moments, and its lasting impact onAmerican democracy. At the heart of this evaluation lies the unprecedented events of January6th, 2021, a day that will be etched into history books as a stark reminder of the fragility ofdemocratic norms and the dangers of unchecked demagoguery.Donald Trump's presidency was characterized by a unique blend of populism,nationalism, and authoritarian tendencies. From the outset, his rhetoric and policies ignitedfervent support among his base while stoking division and controversy across the nation. Hisunorthodox approach to governance, marked by impulsive decision-making and brazen disregardfor political norms, upended traditional notions of presidential leadership and tested theresilience of American institutions. Throughout his presidency, Trump's penchant for36inflammatory rhetoric and media manipulation served to deepen societal divides and underminepublic trust in democratic institutions. His relentless attacks on the media as "fake news" and"the enemy of the people" fostered an environment of hostility towards journalistic integrity andobjective reporting. By casting doubt on the legitimacy of the free press, Trump sought to controlthe narrative and shape public opinion to suit his agenda.The culmination of Trump's presidency and the pinnacle of his assault on democracycame to a head on January 6th, 2021, when a violent mob of his supporters stormed the UnitedStates Capitol in a brazen attempt to overturn the results of the presidential election. As Congressconvened to certify the electoral college votes, Trump, goaded by his own baseless claims ofelection fraud, delivered a fiery speech outside the White House, urging his followers to "fightlike hell" and march on the Capitol to "stop the steal."94 The scenes that unfolded that day werenothing short of harrowing. The hallowed halls of Congress were breached, lawmakers wereforced to evacuate, and the very foundation of American democracy was shaken to its core.95 Theinsurrection, incited by Trump's rhetoric and fueled by years of political polarization, laid barethe deep-seated divisions that had come to define his presidency. In the aftermath of the violence,the nation grappled with the sobering reality that the peaceful transfer of power, a cornerstone ofAmerican democracy, had been threatened as never before. In the weeks and months thatfollowed, Trump's presidency drew to a close amidst a whirlwind of controversy andcondemnation. Impeached for a historic second time by the House of Representatives, Trumpfaced allegations of inciting an insurrection and betraying his oath of office.96 While ultimately96 Tessa Berenson, “Donald Trump Impeached a Second Time in Historic House Vote,” Time, January 13, 2021,https://time.com/5928988/donald-trump-impeached-second-time/.95 “A Timeline of the Government’s Response on Jan. 6, 2021,” American Oversight, January 5, 2023,https://www.americanoversight.org/timeline-jan6.94 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.37acquitted by the Senate, the stain of January 6th would forever tarnish his legacy and cast ashadow over his presidency.97The Trump presidency laid bare the deep-seated divisions that continue to plagueAmerican society. The rise of populism, nationalism, and identity politics under his leadershipexposed fault lines that had long simmered beneath the surface, threatening to tear the fabric ofour nation apart. As America moves forward, the country must strive to bridge these divides,seek common ground, and reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of liberty, equality, and justicefor all.All too similarly, Adolf Hitler's reign as Chancellor and later as Führer98 of NaziGermany stands as one of the darkest chapters in human history, marked by unspeakableatrocities, widespread suffering, and the unfathomable depths of human depravity. Central toHitler's tyrannical rule was his mastery of propaganda and manipulation, epitomized by hisinfamous Reichstag speech of 1939. As we reflect on the legacy of Hitler's reign, it is imperativeto examine the profound impact of this pivotal moment in history and the enduring lessons itholds for humanity.The Reichstag speech of 1939 stands as a chilling testament to Hitler's mastery ofrhetoric and his ruthless pursuit of power. In this address, delivered to the German parliament onthe eve of World War II, Hitler laid bare his expansionist ambitions and his fanatical vision of aracially pure Greater Germany.99 By invoking nationalist sentiment and demonizing perceivedenemies, particularly Jews, Hitler sought to galvanize public support for his radical agenda and99Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.98 Führer is a German word meaning "leader" or "guide.”97 Tessa Berenson, “Donald Trump Impeached a Second Time in Historic House Vote,” Time, January 13, 2021,https://time.com/5928988/donald-trump-impeached-second-time/.38justify the atrocities that would soon follow. At the heart of Hitler's speech was his unapologeticcall for the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe”, a chilling declaration of genocidal intentthat would foreshadow the horrors of the Holocaust.100 With chilling precision, Hitler laid out hisvision of a racially homogeneous Europe, free from the supposed contamination of Jewishinfluence. In doing so, he unleashed a wave of hatred and violence that would engulf thecontinent and claim the lives of millions of innocent men, women, and children.The Reichstag speech also served as a rallying cry for Hitler's militaristic ambitions andhis quest for Lebensraum, or "living space," for the German people.101 By portraying Germany asthe victim of external aggression and justifying his regime's expansionist policies as defensivemeasures, Hitler sought to legitimize his aggressive actions on the world stage. In the monthsand years that followed, Nazi Germany would plunge the world into the deadliest conflict inhuman history, leaving a trail of devastation and despair in its wake. Moreover, Hitler's Reichstagspeech exemplified his mastery of propaganda and manipulation, as he skillfully exploitednationalist sentiment and racial prejudice to consolidate his power and silence dissent. Byscapegoating Jews and other minorities for Germany's perceived woes, Hitler sought to deflectblame and unite the German people behind his regime. Through a relentless campaign ofindoctrination and intimidation, he succeeded in creating a climate of fear and obedience thatallowed him to rule with an iron fist.As we grapple with the legacy of Hitler's reign, it is essential to confront theuncomfortable truths of the past and the enduring lessons they hold for humanity. The Reichstagspeech of 1939 serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked demagoguery and thedevastating consequences of hatred and intolerance. Hitler's reign offers a sobering reminder of101 IBID.100Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.39the importance of vigilance and resistance in the face of tyranny. The atrocities committed underhis regime were not inevitable but the result of a series of choices made by individuals whochose to turn a blind eye to injustice or actively participate in the machinery of oppression. Aswe confront the challenges of the present day, we must remain vigilant against the forces ofhatred and division that threaten to undermine the hard-won gains of democracy and humanrights.The comparative analysis between Trump's January 6th speech and Hitler's Reichstagaddress reveals a convergence of demagogic strategies rooted in the manipulation of nationalistfervor and the exploitation of societal divisions. Both speeches exhibit a calculated appeal toemotive rhetoric, aimed at mobilizing supporters through the vilification of perceived adversariesand the invocation of a shared identity under threat. While situated in distinct historical contexts,the rhetorical techniques employed by Trump and Hitler evoke similar patterns of authoritariandiscourse, characterized by appeals to nationalism, the denigration of dissenting voices, and theincitement of collective action. By examining these speeches within a scholarly framework, wecan discern the underlying mechanisms of demagoguery at play, highlighting the enduringrelevance of historical precedents in understanding contemporary challenges to democraticgovernance and societal cohesion.40CHAPTER FOURLURKING IN THE SHADOWSIn the interplay between light and shadow, lies a realm of uncertainty known as thepenumbra. Here, obscured from the clarity of day, demagogues lurk, weaving webs of deceit anddistortion, particularly in the realm of economics and party politics. Like sinister puppeteersmanipulating unseen strings, these demagogues thrive in the shadows, peddling false narrativesand misleading information to manipulate public perception. Economic and political truthsbecome malleable, twisted to fit the demagogue's agenda, while genuine understanding isshrouded in ambiguity. When demagogues control the narrative, reality is obscured; they employsinister tactics to exploit fears, sow discord, and cast a shadow of doubt upon the very fabric ofpolitical existence.As Justice William O. Douglas once remarked, "The course of true democracy never didrun smooth."102 Indeed, the volatile currents of democracy are often navigated through theturbulent waters of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders harness the power of language tosway the masses and shape the course of history. In this section of analysis, we compare anothertwo significant speeches: President Donald Trump's 2020 State of the Union address and AdolfHitler's Mein Kampf. Superficially, these texts may appear unrelated, but a closer examinationreveals striking parallels in their rhetorical strategies, which sheds light on the enduring appeal ofdemagoguery throughout political discourse.Yet again, President Trump's 2020 State of the Union address stands as a testament to hismastery of rhetoric and his ability to captivate audiences with his populist message. Against the102 Terminiello v. Chicago (United States Supreme Court May 16, 1949).41backdrop of a deeply divided nation and the specter of impeachment looming large, Trumpseized the opportunity to rally his supporters and reaffirm his vision for America. Withcharacteristic bombast and bravado, Trump, conforming to many before him, painted a rosypicture of the nation's economic prosperity, touting record-low unemployment rates and soaringstock market indices as evidence of his administration's success.103 Yet, beneath the veneer ofoptimism lay a darker undercurrent of more nativism and xenophobia, as Trump doubled downon his hardline immigration policies and demonized political opponents as unpatrioticobstructionists. Opening one of his many sentences with a fiery adverb, “tragically,” Trumpexclaims, “some radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegalaliens.”104 Under microscopic analysis, even his use of the noun “alien” is exceptionallydehumanizing, but it is used to replace less inflammatory language like 'undocumentedimmigrants.' As he continued, Trump sought to cast himself as the embodiment of Americanexceptionalism, portraying his presidency as a bulwark against the forces of globalism andpolitical correctness. Yet, for all his rhetorical flourishes, Trump's speech ultimately served todeepen the partisan fault lines that divide the nation, exacerbating tensions and sowing seeds ofdiscord.In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler articulated his twisted vision for Germany and the world,unveiling a chilling portrayal of a demagogue consumed by hatred and delusions of grandeur.105Penned during his incarceration following the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, Hitler's manifestoserved as both a manifesto for his radical political agenda and a rallying cry for his devotees.106Within its pages, Hitler not only vilified Jews, communists, and other marginalized groups as106 Amanda Onion, “Beer Hall Putsch - 1923, Munich & Summary,” History.com, November 6, 2023,https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/beer-hall-putsch.105 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).104 IBID.103 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.42scapegoats for Germany's troubles but also delved deeply into economic and political themes.107Exploiting widespread discontent and economic instability, Hitler painted a grim picture of anation undermined by internal strife and external threats. By harnessing popular grievances andhistorical resentments, Hitler galvanized support for his vision of national rejuvenation,promising to restore Germany to its former glory and purge it of perceived enemies. Mein Kampfbecame a potent instrument of mass indoctrination, which fueled the flames of hatred andjustified heinous crimes in the name of political expediency and ideological purity.Although there are differences to be sure, Trump's State of the Union address and Hitler'sMein Kampf share a common thread: the strategic use of rhetoric to manipulate public opinionand consolidate power. Both Trump and Hitler understood the power of language to shapeperceptions and influence behavior, leveraging fear, anger, and resentment to mobilize theirrespective bases. In Trump's case, this meant stoking fears of economic crash and culturaldilution. In Hitler's case, it meant scapegoating Jews and other minority groups for the nation'sperceived decline.One of the most striking parallels between Trump's State of the Union address andHitler's Mein Kampf is their shared emphasis on the concept of national greatness and renewal.For Trump, this meant reclaiming America's status as a global superpower and restoring theprimacy of the American worker.108 He once proclaimed, "Our agenda is relentlessly pro-worker,pro-family, pro-growth, and, most of all, pro-American," echoing patriotism and nationalprosperity sentiments.109 For Hitler, it meant forging a new German Reich based on racial purityand territorial expansion.110As he famously declared in Mein Kampf, "[w]e demand land and110 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).109 IBID.108 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.107 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).43territory for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population,"encapsulating his aggressive territorial ambitions to secure living space for the German nation.111In both cases, the rhetoric of national greatness served as a potent rallying cry for disaffectedcitizens disillusioned with the status quo. By tapping into a deep-seated longing for meaning andbelonging, Trump and Hitler were able to galvanize support for their radical agendas andmobilize armies of devoted followers willing to sacrifice everything for the promise of a brighterfuture.In addition, Trump and Hilter’s rhetoric on the economy and party politics exhibit similarstrategies. Both Trump and Hitler were adept at harnessing the power of language to manipulatepublic opinion and consolidate power, leveraging fear, anger, and resentment to advance theirradical agendas. Trump's emphasis on job security, economic prosperity, and his portrayal ofhimself as a champion of the American worker echoes Hitler's rhetoric of economic revival andnational rejuvenation. Similarly, both leaders capitalized on party politics, demonizing theiropponents and promoting a narrative of us versus them to rally their base and marginalizedissent. By appealing to deep-seated prejudices and exploiting social divisions, they were able tomobilize support for their respective visions of national greatness and renewal.SHADOWS OF PROSPERITYAdolf Hitler's Mein Kampf stands as a testament to the extreme rhetorical power wieldedby the Nazi leader, particularly concerning economic manipulation for his own agenda of111 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).44demagoguery and nationalistic fervor. Through his carefully crafted language and propaganda,Hitler portrayed himself as the savior of the German people, promising to revitalize the economyand restore the nation to its former glory.112 However, beneath the facade of prosperity andprogress lay a dark and sinister agenda, driven by hatred, intolerance, and a lust for power. Hitlerunderstood the importance of economic issues in shaping public opinion and rallying support forhis cause. He recognized that the economy was a central concern for every German citizen,regardless of their social or economic status. By framing his rhetoric in terms of the nationaleconomy, Hitler sought to appeal to a broad audience, tapping into the anxieties and frustrationsof the German people during a time of economic hardship and uncertainty.In Mein Kampf, Hitler emphasized the interconnectedness of the economy with thewell-being of the nation as a whole. He argued that the strength of the economy was essential formaintaining the health and stability of the state, asserting, "[t]he economy is something thatconcerns every single German, no matter whether he is a worker, a peasant, a businessman, or aprofessional man."113 This sentiment underscored Hitler's populist appeal, portraying himself asthe champion of the common people against the forces of economic oppression and exploitation.However, Hitler's rhetoric on the economy was not merely a reflection of genuine concern for thewelfare of the German people. Instead, it served as a smokescreen for his true intentions – theconsolidation of power and the pursuit of his radical ideological agenda. Hitler artistically spokeof its health exclaiming, “[e]conomic difficulties were increasing every day” and was “unable torecover” until his mission of national and economic recovery was in full effect.114 Hitler soughtto exploit the economic grievances of the German people to further his own political ambitions,114 IBID.113 IBID.112 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).45using promises of economic prosperity to manipulate public opinion and rally support for hisextremist policies.Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler espoused the idea of the "social state," arguing that thestate had a responsibility to ensure the well-being of its citizens.115 He declared, "Today we knowthat this can be achieved only on the foundations of the social state. We do not need anyso-called slogans, but we do need a state which fully satisfies its social responsibilities towardsthe individual citizen."116 This rhetoric was intended to create the illusion of a caring andbenevolent government, one that was committed to addressing the needs of the people andpromoting social justice. However, Hitler's concept of the "social state" was deeply rooted in histwisted ideology of racial superiority and anti-Semitism.117 Under the guise of economic reformand social welfare, Hitler sought to implement policies that would exclude and marginalizecertain groups within German society, particularly Jews and other minorities. By scapegoatingthese groups for Germany's economic woes, Hitler was able to deflect blame from his own failedleadership and maintain support for his authoritarian regime.Hitler's manipulation of economic issues extended beyond mere rhetoric – it was alsoreflected in his policies and actions as Chancellor of Germany.118 Under Hitler's leadership, theNazi regime implemented a series of economic measures aimed at strengthening the nation andconsolidating power.119 These measures included public works projects, rearmament programs,and the promotion of autarky – economic self-sufficiency – through protectionist policies andtrade restrictions.120 However, Hitler's economic policies were ultimately driven by his120 IBID.119 IBID.118 R. J. Overy, War and Economy in the Third Reich (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).117 IBID.116 IBID.115 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).46militaristic ambitions and expansionist goals. He viewed economic strength as a means to an end– the conquest and subjugation of other nations. As he wrote in Mein Kampf, "[t]he final goal ofeconomic activity must be the individual."121 This statement encapsulated Hitler's belief in theprimacy of the state over the individual, as well as his willingness to sacrifice the well-being ofthe German people in pursuit of his imperialist agenda.Despite Hitler's grandiose promises of economic revitalization, the reality was far morebleak. As he himself acknowledged, "[t]he economy was suffering more and more."122 Economictroubles persisted under Hitler's rule, exacerbated by the regime's reckless spending,militarization, and disregard for the basic needs of the population.123 Unemployment remainedhigh, living standards declined, and Germany's economy teetered on the brink of collapse.124 Yet,Hitler refused to acknowledge the failures of his economic policies, instead blaming externalforces and internal enemies for Germany's woes. He justified his authoritarian rule andrepression of dissent as necessary measures to protect the nation from subversion and sabotage.In reality, Hitler's regime was built on a foundation of lies, propaganda, and coercion, maskingthe true nature of his dictatorship and the suffering it inflicted on millions of people.Albeit in a different context, Donald Trump's 2020 State of the Union address mirrorsAdolf Hitler's manipulation of economic themes for his own agenda and demagoguery. Throughcarefully crafted rhetoric, Trump sought to portray himself as the champion of Americanprosperity, promising unprecedented economic growth and job creation under his leadership.However, beneath the veneer of success lay a darker truth – a reality shaped by falsehoods,exaggerations, and a relentless pursuit of power.124 IBID.123 R. J. Overy, War and Economy in the Third Reich (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).122 IBID.121 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).47In his address, Trump boasted of the economic achievements of his administration,declaring, "[i]n just over 2 years since the election, we have launched an unprecedentedeconomic boom — a boom that has rarely been seen before. We have created 5.3 million newjobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs — something which almosteveryone said was impossible to do, but the fact is, we are just getting started."125 This statementechoes Hitler's own grandiose promises of economic revitalization in Mein Kampf, appealing tothe aspirations and desires of the American people for a better future. Trump went on to tout therising wages and declining unemployment rates under his administration, painting an idealpicture of the American economy. He declared that "[w]ages are rising at the fastest pace indecades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I promised to fight for, faster than anyoneelse. Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. The United States economy isgrowing almost twice as fast today as when I took office, and we are considered far and away thehottest economy anywhere in the world."126 These claims, while partially based in reality, arealso characterized by exaggeration and selective interpretation of economic data.Trump's emphasis on tax cuts and deregulation as drivers of economic growth furtherreflects his agenda of catering to corporate interests and the wealthy elite. He boasted, "[w]epassed a massive tax cut for working families and doubled the child tax credit."127 However,critics argue that these tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and exacerbated incomeinequality, echoing the criticisms leveled against Hitler's economic policies in Mein Kampf.128Moreover, Trump's rhetoric on immigration serves as a stark reminder of the dangers ofscapegoating marginalized groups for economic woes. He claimed that "[n]o issue better128 Mayu Takeuchi et al., “Effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: A Preliminary Analysis,” Brookings, March 9, 2022,https://www.brookings.edu/articles/effects-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-a-preliminary-analysis/.127 IBID.126 IBID.125 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.48illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegalimmigration. Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their livesbehind walls and gates and guards. Meanwhile, working-class Americans are left to pay the pricefor mass illegal migration — reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools and hospitals,increased crime, and a depleted social safety net."129 Trump's assertion that illegal immigrationresults in reduced jobs, lower wages, and increased crime reflects his populist narrative thatportrays immigrants as economic and social threats to native-born Americans. This narrativeplays into fears about job insecurity and competition for resources, resonating with those whofeel economically vulnerable or marginalized. Furthermore, Trump's reference to "wealthypoliticians and donors" who advocate for open borders while living in gated communitiesunderscores his portrayal of the political elite as out of touch with the everyday struggles ofworking-class Americans.130 By contrasting the privileged lifestyles of these elites with theperceived hardships faced by ordinary citizens, Trump reinforces his image as a champion of the"forgotten man" and a defender of American interests. This rhetoric mirrors Hitler's scapegoatingof Jews and other minorities for Germany's economic troubles, perpetuating fear and division forpolitical gain.In the realm of political discourse, both Hitler's Mein Kampf and Trump's 2020 State ofthe Union address cast shadows of demagoguery and manipulation. Hitler wielded economicthemes to advance his radical agenda, while Trump used economic success as a veil for hisunderlying motives. Both exploited economic grievances, fostering division and inequality. Byshedding light on these shadows, we confront the dangers of demagoguery and safeguard130 IBID.129 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.49democracy from manipulation and tyranny. Yet, lurking within these shadows lies a reminder ofthe darkness that threatens to engulf societies when rhetoric is used to obscure truthHitler's Mein Kampf and Trump's 2020 State of the Union address epitomize the shadowsof demagoguery and manipulation that have haunted political discourse. Despite their temporaland ideological disparities, both leaders demonstrated a remarkable ability to harness economicrhetoric to their advantage, manipulating public perception and maintaining power. Hitler,through Mein Kampf, skillfully wielded economic themes to propel his radical agenda forward,exploiting societal grievances and promising a revitalized Germany under his leadership.Similarly, Trump, in his State of the Union address, employed economic success as a cloak forhis true intentions, using it to mask his underlying motives and garner support. In both cases,economic issues became an effective tool for fostering division and inequality, highlighting theshared yet concealed character of demagoguery, seemingly inherent, in both leader’s rhetoric.SHROUDED PARTISANSHIPPartisanship, a fundamental aspect of political engagement, encompasses the unwaveringloyalty and support individuals exhibit toward a particular political ideology, leader, or party.While overt displays of partisanship are often observable through explicit declarations ofallegiance, a subtler manifestation operates in the background, exerting its influencesurreptitiously.131 This covert form of partisanship remains largely unacknowledged, yet it playsa pivotal role in shaping individual perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors within the politicalsphere.132 Within the context of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders exploit societal132 IBID.131 Mathew Thornburg, “Party Registration Deadlines and Hidden Partisanship: An Individual Analysis,”Commonwealth Review of Political Science, 2021,https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=crps.50divisions and inflame populist sentiments to bolster their authority, this hidden undercurrent ofpartisanship operates as a potent force, amplifying the resonance and impact of demagogicagendas.Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and Donald Trump's 2020 State of the Union address serve aspoignant examples of how partisanship intertwines with demagogic rhetoric, exhibitingcharacteristic traits of covert and implicit allegiance. Mein Kampf, Hitler's infamous manifesto,embodies the epitome of partisan fervor, promoting a virulent nationalist and supremacistideology aimed at galvanizing support for the Nazi Party. Through its manipulation of languageand imagery, Hitler’s manifesto appeals to the hidden biases and prejudices of its audience,which fostered a sense of collective identity and unity under Hitler's leadership. Similarly,Trump's 2020 State of the Union address leverages implicit appeals to partisan loyalties,employing rhetorical strategies designed to resonate with his political base while vilifying hisopponents. Through veiled references to divisive issues and polarizing rhetoric, Trump harnessesthe covert currents of partisanship to rally support for his administration and underminedissenting voices.While overt displays of partisanship are often conspicuous, this covert form operatessubtly and influences individual decision-making without explicit acknowledgment. Within therealm of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders exploit societal divisions to consolidate power,this covert undercurrent of partisanship assumes heightened significance, catalyzing demagogicagendas.In the pages of Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler adeptly constructs, yet again, an "us vs. them"framework, a fundamental tactic in the playbook of partisanship. This divisive strategy hinges onthe stark differentiation between one's own group and the perceived "other" — in Hitler's case,51the so-called “Aryan race” versus various other groups he deemed inferior or threatening.133 Thismethod of polarizing groups is instrumental in rallying support by fostering a sense of unityagainst a common enemy. For example, Hitler's assertion that "the Jew is the great master of lies"serves as a clear demonstration of his efforts to vilify a specific group, thereby galvanizing hisfollowers through a shared animosity.134 Such tactics are not merely historical footnotes butserve as a warning of the potency of divisive rhetoric in eroding societal cohesion. Thismechanism works by simplifying complex social and political issues into binary oppositions,which makes it easier to mobilize support through emotional manipulation rather than throughreasoned debate or factual accuracy. The danger of this approach lies in its ability to dehumanizethe "other," reducing individuals to mere stereotypes or scapegoats. In doing so, it becomesalarmingly simple to justify discrimination, aggression, and even violence against those who arecast as the enemy. For example, Hitler exclaims, "[t]he more modest his [a bourgeoisie] outwardbehavior, the more malicious his attacks and the more evil his criticism became. And this malicewas directed not only against my person but above all against the people of whose mouthpiece heclaimed to be. Thus, for example, he declared with impudent mendacity that the 'traitors' amongthe bourgeoisie were 'the real leaders of the nation.'”135 This quote illustrates Hitler's portrayal ofan internal enemy within the German nation – in this case, the bourgeoisie who opposed hisideology – fostering a sense of solidarity among his supporters while demonizing those whoopposed or criticized his movement. Hitler’s adept use of this tactic in Mein Kampf reveals achilling insight into the psychology of partisanship and demagoguery— illustrating how easilyfear and prejudice can be weaponized to achieve power. By examining these strategies, we gain a135 IBID.134 IBID.133 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).52deeper understanding of the critical importance of vigilance against the re-emergence of suchdivisive tactics in contemporary discourse.Adolf Hitler’s approach in Mein Kampf reveals a nuanced understanding of the powerinherent in charismatic leadership and the construction of a cult of personality. This strategicfabrication is pivotal, not only as a means of asserting control but also in engendering anunwavering sense of allegiance among followers. Hitler writes: "All great movements arepopular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirredinto activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into themidst of the people."136 Here, Hitler positions himself as the torchbearer, suggesting that hiswords and actions have the power to incite and lead the masses. By portraying himself as thecatalyst for change and framing his leadership as indispensable to the movement's success, Hitlerreinforces the idea of his own indispensability and elevates his persona above that of hisfollowers and contributes to the cult of personality surrounding him.Through carefully crafted public image and rhetoric, Hitler positioned himself as notmerely a leader but as an embodiment of the ideals and aspirations of his audience. After all,Hitler embellished his autobiography “to convince Germans he was their natural leader.”137 Thiscreation of a larger-than-life persona, seemingly possessing superhuman qualities and insights, isa hallmark of demagoguery that taps deeply into human psychology. The mechanics of this tacticlie in its ability to bypass rational judgment, appealing directly to the emotional and aspirationalfacets of human nature. People are naturally drawn to figures who appear extraordinarilyconfident and capable, especially in times of uncertainty or hardship. By presenting himself as137 Thomas Webler, “Hitler Created a Fictional Persona to Recast Himself as Germany’s Savior,” Smithsonian.com,January 10, 2018,https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hitler-created-fictional-persona-to-recast-himself-as-germanys-savior-180967790/.136 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).53the singular solution to the nation's woes, Hitler manipulated this inclination to secure a ferventbase of support. This emotional bond, once established, made questioning or opposing him notjust a political dissent but a betrayal of personal loyalty and belief.However, President Trump's rhetoric is heavily steeped in partisanship, both overtly andcovertly, as evidenced by his choice of language and the issues he addresses. In his speeches, heoften employs direct appeals to partisan values associated with the Republican Party, such as inhis proclamation that "[o]ur agenda is relentlessly pro-worker, pro-family, pro-growth, and, mostof all, pro-American."138 Trump’s claim that his agenda is “pro-worker” is unusual; typically,pro-worker or union-based initiatives tend to be Democratic priorities. Trump’s political shift inadvocating for blue-collar workers opposes traditional conservative principles, sparking debatesamong scholars as to whether this was another political yet populist maneuver to maintain hiswinning coalition. Similarly, Trump's assertion that "[t]ogether, we will continue to reaffirm thatAmerica will never be a socialist country" reflects his strategic use of fear-mongering to stokeopposition to left-leaning policies and ideologies.139 Trump asserts that if the left were todominate the political atmosphere, America would regress into a state of socialism, underminingthe principles of free enterprise and individual liberty upon which the nation was founded. Thisnarrative perpetuates a dichotomy of "us versus them," framing the left as a radical forcethreatening the fabric of American society. Such rhetoric aims to galvanize support by tappinginto fears of economic redistribution and government control, thereby reinforcing his politicalbase and widening the ideological divide. By leveraging these hot-button topics, Trump not onlyreinforces his image as a staunch defender of conservative values but also deepens the139 IBID.138 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.54ideological divide within his audience, further solidifying his position as the leader of theright-wing movement.While some of Trump's rhetoric may appear anodyne on the surface, it often containscovert partisan messaging, strategically designed to reinforce his political narrative. For instance,he glorifies American history and achievements, subtly suggesting that his administration isresponsible for making America even greater. Trump claims that "[t]he American nation wascarved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men andwomen ever to walk on the face of the Earth," tapping into the mythology of Americanexceptionalism and valorizing the pioneer spirit.140 Moreover, his assertion that "[o]ur ancestorsbuilt the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making itgreater than ever before!" not only emphasizes his administration's purported accomplishmentsbut also subtly frames his presidency as a continuation of the nation's illustrious legacy.141 Thesestatements not only evoke a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism, appealing to a broadaudience, but also subtly associate his leadership with the narrative of American greatness.Throughout his speeches, Trump strategically uses language that reinforces partisandivisions while positioning himself as the champion of conservative values. He celebrates theaccomplishments of his administration and claims that "[j]obs are booming, incomes are soaring,poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving andhighly respected again!"142 These statements not only tout his administration's achievements butalso implicitly suggest that those who oppose him are against the prosperity and well-being ofthe nation. By intertwining his policies with patriotic rhetoric and divisive issues, Trumpsolidifies his support base among conservatives while alienating those with opposing viewpoints.142 IBID.141 IBID.140 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.55Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and Donald Trump's 2020 State of the Union address offerpoignant illustrations of how partisanship intertwines with demagogic rhetoric, exhibiting traitsof both overt and covert allegiance. Hitler's manifesto embodies virulent nationalism andsupremacy, appealing to hidden biases and prejudices to foster a sense of collective identityunder his leadership. Similarly, Trump's speech leverages implicit appeals to partisan loyalties,using rhetoric designed to resonate with his political base while vilifying opponents. Moreover,both leaders employ divisive strategies, creating an "us versus them" framework to rally supportby polarizing groups and fostering a sense of unity against perceived enemies. Hitler'svilification of specific groups in Mein Kampf serves to galvanize followers through sharedanimosity, while Trump's subtle references to divisive issues in his address mobilize support bytapping into deep-seated fears and prejudices. The construction of a cult of personality is alsocentral to both leaders' strategies, as they present themselves as embodiments of their followers'aspirations and ideals. Hitler's creation of a larger-than-life persona bypasses rational judgment,appealing directly to emotional and aspirational facets of human nature, while Trump'sglorification of American history and achievements subtly associates his leadership withnarratives of greatness.56CHAPTER FIVECONCLUDING INSIGHTSThis scholarly examination underscores the striking similarities in Adolf Hitler andDonald Trump’s rhetoric and demagogic attributes. By delving into facets such as nationalism,media manipulation, party dynamics, economic policies, governance approaches, and powertransitions, a tapestry of parallels that transcends temporal and cultural boundaries becomesevident. Furthermore, it becomes evident that both leaders exploited similar tactics to cultivate afervent base of support, capitalize on societal grievances, and advance their political agendas.While acknowledging these parallels, it is imperative to maintain scholarly rigor andcontextual sensitivity. Drawing direct equivalences between Hitler and Trump risksoversimplification and can undermine the complexities of their respective historical moments.Instead, this nuanced examination highlights the enduring patterns of charismatic leadership andpopulist appeal that transcend individual personalities. Such comparative scholarship not onlyenriches understanding of political phenomena but also provides insights into the broaderdynamics of power, ideology, and mass mobilization. Moreover, by contextualizing the speechesand actions of Hitler and Trump within broader socio-political frameworks, this work elucidatesthe underlying structural factors that shape the rise and fall of demagogic movements. Thisinterdisciplinary approach facilitates a deeper comprehension of the interplay between leadershipstyles, institutional dynamics, and socio-economic forces, contributing to more informed debatesand policy interventions.This analysis offers valuable insights into the enduring traits of demagoguery and theirimplications for democratic governance. No matter the subject of analysis, striking rhetorical57parallels can be drawn between Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump, both of whom rose to politicalprominence through charismatic rhetoric and the exploitation of nationalist sentiments. Hitler'sReichstag speech in 1933, marked by scapegoating and calls for unity, bears resemblance toTrump's divisive rhetoric in his January 6th speech, where he perpetuated false claims of electionfraud and encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell."143 Similarly, Hitler's Mein Kampfoutlined his supremacist ideology and vilification of certain groups, echoing Trump'sinflammatory language throughout his 2020 State of the Union address targeting immigrants,minorities, and political opponents. By leveraging fear, resentment, and a cult of personality,both leaders cultivated fervent followings, demonstrating a capacity to manipulate public opinionand undermine democratic institutions. Thus, while the historical contexts may differ, theemergence of demagogic leadership characterized by authoritarian tendencies and appeals tonativism underscores the enduring relevance of examining the parallels between Hitler andTrump, facilitating the portrayal of Trump as a demagogue in his own right.143 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.

Clean Full Text

Language

Doi

Arxiv

Mag

Acl

Pmid

Pmcid

Pub Date

Pub Year

Journal Name

Journal Volume

Journal Page

Publication Types

Tldr

Tldr Version

Generated Tldr

Search Term Used

Reference Count

Citation Count

Influential Citation Count

Last Update

Status

Aws Job

Last Checked

Modified

Created