On vermin

Some closing thoughts

A couple of weeks ago, I downloaded a collection of Hitler’s speeches and started going through them. I also searched my own files, especially the notes I took when working years ago in Russian archives. I was looking for the word “vermin.” Also “parasite.” And, in the Hitler speeches, references to “blood.”

The result was an article that mostly just quoted Donald Trump, noting that some of language he uses comes directly from the 1930s. Not just Hitler but Stalin, Mao and the East German Stasi liked to talk about their enemies as vermin and parasites who “poison the blood” of the nation:

The word vermin, as a political term, dates from the 1930s and ’40s, when both fascists and communists liked to describe their political enemies as vermin, parasites, and blood infections, as well as insects, weeds, dirt, and animals. The term has been revived and reanimated, in an American presidential campaign, with Donald Trump’s description of his opponents as “radical-left thugs” who “live like vermin.”

This language isn’t merely ugly or repellent: These words belong to a particular tradition. Adolf Hitler used these kinds of terms often. In 1938, he praised his compatriots who had helped “cleanse Germany of all those parasites who drank at the well of the despair of the Fatherland and the People.” In occupied Warsaw, a 1941 poster displayed a drawing of a louse with a caricature of a Jewish face. The slogan: “Jews are lice: they cause typhus.” Germans, by contrast, were clean, pure, healthy, and vermin-free. Hitler once described the Nazi flag as “the victorious sign of freedom and the purity of our blood.”

Stalin used the same kind of language at about the same time. He called his opponents the “enemies of the people,” implying that they were not citizens and that they enjoyed no rights. He portrayed them as vermin, pollution, filth that had to be “subjected to ongoing purification,” and he inspired his fellow communists to employ similar rhetoric. In my files, I have the notes from a 1955 meeting of the leaders of the Stasi, the East German secret police, during which one of them called for a struggle against “vermin activities” (there is, inevitably, a German word for this: Schädlingstätigkeiten), by which he meant the purge and arrest of the regime’s critics. In this same era, the Stasi forcibly moved suspicious people away from the border with West Germany, a project nicknamed “Operation Vermin.”

This kind of language was not limited to Europe. Mao Zedong also described his political opponents as “poisonous weeds.” Pol Pot spoke of “cleansing” hundreds of thousands of his compatriots so that Cambodia would be “purified.”

In each of these very different societies, the purpose of this kind of rhetoric was the same. If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them. If they are parasites, they aren’t human. If they are vermin, they don’t get to enjoy freedom of speech, or freedoms of any kind. And if you squash them, you won’t be held accountable.

I also tried to find previous examples US presidents or presidential candidates over the past century talking like this. But I found that even the most openly racist figures did not.

George Wallace’s notorious, racist, neo-Confederate 1963 speech, his inaugural speech as Alabama governor and the prelude to his first presidential campaign, avoided such language. Wallace called for “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” But he did not speak of his political opponents as “vermin” or talk about them poisoning the nation’s blood. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps following the outbreak of World War II, spoke of “alien enemies” but not parasites.

This was a fairly straightforward argument, mostly just quotations. Read the whole thing here:

I was not the only person to hear these historical echoes in Trump’s speech. General John Kelly, the former chief of staff in Trump’s White House, has also described, on the record, in both the New York Times and the Atlantic, how Trump would frequently praise Hitler’s generals. Not only did Kelly use the word ‘fascist’ to describe Trump, thirteen former Trump White House officials signed a statement agreeing with him.

But not everybody agreed. Normally I wouldn’t write about reactions to my writing: I have opinions and others have them too. But this time, the response of Trump supporters - or rather, people who are going to vote for Trump because he might lower their taxes – interested me, because it reminded me of things I’ve seen in other places.  Other than the usual suspects – posters on 4chan, the website of Russia Today, and Elon Musk - I also got a response from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Under the headline “the fascist meme re-emerges,” the editorial board dismissed my article and others as “hyperbole,” said that there’s nothing to worry about and, tellingly, threw some insults at Joe Biden. A couple of weeks later the historian Niall Ferguson, writing in the Daily Mail, dismissed the whole conversation about “fascism” and then attacked Kamala Harris as undemocratic on the grounds that some people around her have argued for constitutional change. This is a phenomenon that the Poles call symmetrism: whenever something ugly emerges about  someone in your political camp, search immediately for something ugly to say about your opponents, whether or not it is equivalent.

Something else was going on too. These are intelligent, well-read Trump supporters; they also hear the echoes from history, but they don’t want to draw conclusions from what they are hearing. They belittle, undermine, excuse and ignore his language, his scorn for the rule of law, his allusions to violence and his constant predictions of chaos because if they were to take this language seriously, then they would also have to draw uncomfortable conclusions about themselves.

With just a few days to go, let me step back and make the case, once again, for why Trump’s language, and Trump’s propaganda, matter so much. Do note that, despite the criticism, it has not stopped. Right up until the final moments of the campaign, Trump was still casting his opponents as “enemies,” as was everyone around him. At his Madison Square Garden rally, one speaker after the next described Puerto Rico as “garbage,” Harris as “the anti-Christ” and Hillary Clinton as a “sick son of a bitch.” At an event with Tucker Carlson on Thursday, he called for violence against Liz Cheney: "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."

Trump will not personally try to kill Cheney. But he wants us to get used to the idea that someone might, and that would be ok. Also, he wants us to get used to the idea that he might transgress, break the law - or try, once again, to steal the election.

As I wrote, again in the Atlantic,

You are meant to accept this language and behavior, to consider this kind of rhetoric ‘baked in’ to any Trump campaign. You are supposed to just get used to the idea that Trump wishes he had ‘Hitler’s generals’ or that he uses the Stalinist phrase ‘enemies of the people’ to describe his opponents. Because once you think that’s normal, then you’ll accept the next step. Even when that next step is an assault on democracy and the rule of law.’”

This campaign has had a purpose. It has prepared Americans - even serious, establishment historians, or members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board - to accept what comes next. If Harris wins on Tuesday, you can expect a massive campaign to change the result. Accusations that “illegal immigrants” are voting, for which there is absolutely no evidence; shenanigans with vote certification; maybe even games played by the House of Representatives.

Again, read the whole article here:

And if Trump wins? He and the people around him have already told us what they will do. They will seek to transform the federal government into a loyalty machine that serves the interests of himself and his cronies. This was the essence of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and it will become reality. The Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS and maybe others will focus on harassing Trump’s enemies in the media and in politics. Whole branches of the federal government will be farmed out to cronies who will build kleptocracy on a new scale.

These changes will not come overnight. They will happen slowly, over time, as they did in Hungary, Venezuela or Turkey. And at each stage, there will be people arguing that we should accept or ignore them.

Don’t listen to them. And do vote.