EletiofeCall Trump's Scheme for What It Is: Autocracy

Call Trump’s Scheme for What It Is: Autocracy


- Advertisment -

Yesterday, mobs of President Trump’s supporters encircled and stormed the US Capitol as Congress was confirming incoming president Joe Biden’s election victory. Congress was evacuated as rioters smashed windows and breached the Senate floor; there was evidently an armed standoff, and one woman was killed after a shooting. Rioters hung a noose on the west side of the building, and law enforcement discovered multiple improvised explosive devices on the grounds.

What happened was first and foremost the fault of Donald Trump and his allies and enablers—his children, his White House aides, his right-wing media amplifiers and cronies, the Republicans who, moments before the Capitol building was invaded, stood on the floor in antidemocratic efforts to overturn a legitimate and concluded election. Trump in fact spouted his baseless election-theft claims to the crowds earlier that day. It was, in a very dark sense, a team effort, a network of individuals stoking the flames for their leader.

The storming of the Capitol building on Wednesday afternoon—with a full session inside, two weeks from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ inauguration—also showed, yet again, the vital importance of words in describing threats to democracy. These problems will not vanish into thin air come January 20, and the underappreciation of language in American political discourse by traditional media and social media platforms alike only threatens to obscure naming these dangers for what they are.

The gravity of word choice was discarded all too often in the last four years. After a white supremacist terrorist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, when the president equated anti-racist protesters with right-wing terrorists wearing Nazi insignia and chanting “Jews will not replace us”—“there is blame on both sides,” he said, after a woman was murdered—many media outlets, or pundits for that matter, would still not call Trump “racist” or “antisemitic.” We can’t know Trump administration officials’ exact intentions, one political reporter told me.

When Trump lied thousands and thousands of times, in many cases regurgitating the same blatant falsehoods ad nauseam, the same hesitance was applied (at least for a while, for some) to using the word “lie.” Yet as Masha Gessen writes in Surviving Autocracy, “A journalist who assumes that Trump’s intention is unknowable, that repeated false statements—when the truth is indeed knowable—do not, factually, constitute lying, is abdicating the responsibility to tell the story, to provide the context of what happened a year ago, yesterday, or even in parallel with the lying.” It patently defies the reality: continued lying when the truth is widely known. Social media companies calling Trump’s lies “misinformation” instead of disinformation—the former projecting a lack of intent, the presence of accident—fit this same mold. It took years of Trump’s lies for platforms to apply a mere label to them and until a coup attempt yesterday for Trump’s Twitter account to be suspended for the first time.

This apathy for rhetorical accuracy—not saying “racist” or “liar,” parading out claims of Trump “being presidential” the second he managed a half-coherent sentence not openly laced with vitriol—contributed to downplaying Donald Trump’s threat to democracy. This was on full display yesterday.

Immediately following election day in November, Trump began filing legally baseless challenges to ballot counts in multiple states, nothing more than an authoritarian ploy to seize power by whatever means possible. Again, imprecise descriptions of the scheme—a “sideshow,” a “distraction,” the mere temper tantrum of a man who cannot accept loss—downplayed its autocratic nature and its violence-inspiring force. For if it was a “sideshow,” he devoted many hours of his time, as did countless enablers in Washington and country-wide, to convincing supporters to believe in the “fraud” and donate money to steal the election in the courts. If it was a “distraction,” it certainly captivated those angry individuals plotting violence on right-wing forums and organizing yesterday’s events on social media platforms weeks in advance. If it was a temper tantrum, it was conducted by an adult, was aided by other adults, and inspired other adults to violence in the nation’s capital.

Before Facebook finally suspended Trump’s account today until after the inauguration, the company, run by a man supposedly hell-bent on “connecting people,” froze comments on internal forums where horrified employees called for that action. Even on multiple TV networks yesterday, the individuals mobbing Congress to steal an election were for a period called “protesters”—as if they were, in fact, merely protesting, and championing a legitimate cause—rather than terrorists, wielding violence for political objectives. “Anarchists,” too, was a word tossed around, almost flippantly, to characterize the crowd—instead of the authoritarianism of absolute deference to a single individual. Perhaps most disturbingly, the word “surprise” reared its head on more than one occasion, as an observation of both the events unfolding and of security responses to them, despite the months of indication that Trump’s rhetoric, his supporters’ fury, was very much not a “sideshow.”

Authorities managed to clear and secure the Capitol building, but the removal of these individuals does not mean the public, the media included, should stop interrogating the reality of authoritarianism in America. Make no mistake—there will be Trump allies and enablers, former staffers and members of the Republican party, who will try to downplay their involvement, to distort the record of what unfolded, to rhetorically use their last-minute half-rebukes of violence as absolution for all their behavior that came before.

All this means that language isn’t important solely for framing future internal threats to democracy, offline and online. Words matter in this historical context too, and we should never stop interrogating that.

WIRED Opinion publishes articles by outside contributors representing a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here, and see our submission guidelines here. Submit an op-ed at [email protected].

More Great WIRED Stories

Latest news

Former West Ham players walk out of The Soccer Tournament after opponent’s alleged racial slur

A group of former West Ham United players walked off the field during a match in The Soccer Tournament...

Elon Musk Is A Transphobe

Twitter, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk marked the start of LGBTQ Pride month by dropping all pretense about...

The 44 Best Movies on Netflix This Week

The streaming service has plenty of offerings, but sometimes finding the best movies on Netflix can be a real...

Robert Asprin Was One of Sci-Fi’s Most Colorful Characters

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article. ...
- Advertisement -

The Instagram Founders’ News App Artifact Is Actually an AI Play

The invasion of chatbots has disrupted the plans of countless businesses, including some that had been working on that...

How to Use Split Screen (2023): Windows, Mac, Chromebook, Android, iPad

Life is busy. Multitasking is essential for anyone struggling to balance work, play, and the demands of daily life....

Must read

Elon Musk Is A Transphobe

Twitter, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk marked the...
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you