The Dangers of Branding Critics as Nazis: A Deep Dive

It’s common to ask, do words truly make an impact? Individuals who create mountains of text for their livelihoods would like to affirm so. Their aspiration is that they could employ linguistics as a tool to influence, educate, and ideally, amuse. However, if language indeed wields such power, it leaves one questioning why the rhetoric of those in authority can often be irresponsibly reckless. A glance at recent events reveals inflammatory terms being thrown at ICE officers: terms such as Gestapo, Neo-Nazis, Secret Police. Disappointingly, these aren’t the rantings of an anonymous online user operating from a secluded basement. These are the words chosen by Governor Tim Walz, Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu, and Governor Gavin Newsom, respectively.

Consider the individuals who propagated such harsh epithets. One could have been our Vice President, had the voting outcome in the previous November been different. The latter – California’s Governor – is not secretive about his aspirations to become a future President. One would surmise that individuals of such stature would exercise caution in branding federal employees with the vilest of labels. Because, what is the expectation when confronted with Nazis or neo-Nazis? The presumption is clear: they are to be combated, eradicated – at a minimum, they are to be treated harshly early on. It’s a universally accepted notion that such societal evils should be repudiated, that they should not be allowed to roam freely. Especially ones likened to stormtroopers from the neo-Nazi Gestapo or Secret Police.

In a societal context where there are minimal alternative reference points for malice, such characterizations are practically invitations for impulsive actions. Unless, of course, there is an odd belief that while Nazis can be identified, they should be left unharmed. However, who among us would entertain such thought? The alternative explanation would be that these individuals don’t sincerely believe in the terminology they use, but strategically unleash them to gain an upper hand in a debate. Unfortunately, many individuals place significant value on such words and react accordingly.

Take the case of the young man who ended the life of Charlie Kirk, motivated by a belief that the latter’s views were intolerably repugnant. As per his message to his partner, the alleged murderer expressed his intolerance for Kirk’s ‘hatred’. He reportedly concluded that it was justifiable to harm Kirk since he deemed him to be a vile hate-figure akin to a Nazi. Astoundingly, all Charlie Kirk was, in reality, a popular and articulate conservative. After such a tragic incident, a reduction in rhetoric use was expected, in order to avoid misinterpretations by susceptible individuals prone to violent reactions.

Unfortunately, ideological divisions including both extreme and mainstream perspectives, as showcased through individuals like Walz and Newsom, have chosen to continue with their harsh labeling. Their choice is to continue branding even federal officers serving a federal agency as Nazis. And understandably, this has led to more individuals acting on their instilled beliefs. For example, this week saw another impressionable individual, Joshua Jahn, decide to confront whom he’s been led to believe are Nazis.

Alarmingly, his retaliatory measures echo the ones taken by Charlie Kirk’s assailant. Carrying similar motivations, he too armed himself, positioned himself strategically, and fired at people whom he believed to be Nazis. His ammunition bore personal slogans – in this case “Anti-ICE”. His actions were aimed at ICE officers, resulting, however, in the unintentional harm of three detainees, of which one did not survive the injuries.

Isn’t it high time we reconsider accusing everyone we oppose of being a Nazi? Isn’t it time we realize the impact of our words when consistently portraying ICE employees – who indeed make our country relatively safer by detaining foreign criminals – as Nazis? Our society can only take so much before such harmful narratives lead to violent actions, such as the ones that took place just a night before Jahn’s incident. Contrarily, Governor Newsom was still picturing ICE officers’ deployment as ‘authoritarian actions by an authoritarian government’ in a recent appearance on Stephen Colbert’s show.

Unfortunately, we’ve grown accustomed to hearing such language from mainstream personalities. And while some have convincingly argued that this rhetoric has lost meaning, there are members of our society who reject this premise. They take these claims literally. This week, Newsom also expressed concerns doubting the possibility of an election happening in the United States in 2028. His warnings were applauded as courageous, further indicating the acceptance of such rhetoric in our society.

Reflect, for a moment, on how we’ve reached a stage where even senior figures like Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, who were once respected, are perpetuating this narrative. The same can be said about ‘the great uniter,’ Joe Biden. These individuals have, at various points, drawn similarities between President Trump and Hitler, casting doubt on future elections and suggesting that the American democratic experiment could come to an end because of Trump.

Personally, if I had prophesied the terminus of democracy which then proceeded to plod along, that would likely be my cue to retreat into quiet obscurity. If I had garnished my opponents with the Hitler tag and subsequently seen several violent attacks on them – including two directed at President Trump – I’d likely soften my rhetoric. But it appears that public figures like Newsom have a different perspective on this. They seemingly have no intention of stopping, even when they fully understand the implications.

However, the reality is that our present turbulence is not limited to mere rhetoric. There was yet another act of violence last week when an ABC affiliate in Sacramento was the target of an armed attack. After all these attacks encompassing politicians, journalists, activists, ICE officers, and more, are we still to believe that the ‘they’re all Hitler’ crusade is justified? If so, then it is our duty as sensible minds to remember these individuals, to make them answerable at the polling booth.

All the while, perhaps emphasizing the mounting toll of bloodshed they’re causing. After all, words do matter, and for some, these words will continue to incite action.