Gardner-Webb UniversityGardner-Webb University
Digital Commons @ Gardner-Webb UniversityDigital Commons @ Gardner-Webb University
Undergraduate Honors Theses Honors Program
2024
Rhetorical Demagoguery: An Exploration of Trump’s and Hitler’sRhetorical Demagoguery: An Exploration of Trump’s and Hitler’s
Rise to PowerRise 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 InformationCitation 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 Power
An Honors Thesis
Presented to
The University Honors Program
Gardner-Webb University
Fall 2023
by
Tanner Horne
ii
Accepted 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 Committee
iii
Dedication
I dedicate this to my mother, Emile Horne. She taught me what it means to strive for excellence.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………… v
CHAPTER
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 7
a. Literature Review …………………………………………………………. 9
2. Defining Demagoguery……………………………………………………………. 12
a. Establishing Credibility …………………………………………………… 16
3. Playing With Fire …………………………………………………………………. 19
a. Inflaming Nationalism …..……………………………………………….. 22
b. Blazing Truths …………………………………………………………….. 28
c. Scorching Conclusions …………………………………………………… 35
4. Lurking In The Shadows ………………………………………………………….. 40
a. Shadows of Prosperity …………………………..……………………….. 43
b. Shrouded Partisanship ………………………..………………………….. 49
5. Concluding Insights ………………………………………………………………. 56
v
ABSTRACT
RHETORICAL DEMAGOGUERY:
AN EXPLORATION OF TRUMP’S AND HITLER’S RISE TO POWER
By
Tanner Horne
Bachelors of Political Science
Gardner-Webb University
Fall 2023
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’s speeches and declarations. While their political strategies ultimately
differed greatly, a close analysis of their speeches, transcripts, and broadcasts reveals comparable
vi
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.
7
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
On June 16th, 2015, New York businessman Donald J. Trump irrevocably changed the
landscape of American politics by descending a golden escalator in Trump Tower and declaring
his presidency with remarks peppered with half-truths and hate speech.1 Trump boldly declared
America had lost its seat at the top of the food chain, the age-old dream of opportunity and
prosperity had died, and only he could right the trajectory of the declining economy and reclaim
America’s status as a superpower.2 He went on to claim that “[t]he U.S. has become a dumping
ground for everybody else’s problems,” and he would do what no one else had ever dared
before–build a wall at the southern border to keep out criminals and rapists.3 This introductory
speech, 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 six
years, 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 voters
to raise their right hand and pledge support to him, political commentators and average citizens
would compare his antics and ever-increasing rhetoric to another world leader who began his
reign much the same way.4
4 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/.
8
Adolf Hitler preyed on German nationalism when he became the leader of post-war
World War I Germany. With pride in country and a promise of renewal, Hitler stoked German
fires with his elegant rhetoric. However, impassioned speeches soon became an inherent
overflow of blame and hate-filled messaging aimed at Jews and any other party he believed was
responsible for Germany’s colossal losses following WWI. “Heil Hitler,” they would chant, with
one arm raised in the air with a straightened hand– “Heil Hitler.”5 This gesture was soon
demanded of all Nazi and government officials and, with a few exceptions, the entire German
population.6 Hitler craved obedience and servitude, and making this salute mandatory allowed
him to flex his power. He demanded unwavering loyalty, and any sign of dissent was harshly
punished. In time, this salute replaced ordinary German greetings and salutations, becoming the
primary and expected mode of acknowledgment.7 This gesture became a symbol of the Nazi
regime 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-haired
blue-eyed perfect German. Formally known as The Holocaust, approximately 11 million
individuals– 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– Adolf
Hitler.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, he
8 “The Holocaust: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans,” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, June
22, 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).
9
ordered the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”9 To achieve his mission, Hitler
demanded the construction of concentration camps throughout Europe. This terrible reality was
only possible by Hitler’s ingenious ploy of rhetorical demagoguery throughout his political
career. An almost impossible element to avoid, anti-semitism, xenophobia, and racism became
paramount to Hitler’s mission of galvanizing the irrationality of Europeans.10
While this examination of both Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump does bear some
similarities between the two men and their political agenda, Trump’s presidency did not come
close to the level of atrocity that Hitler subjected upon Western Europe. America in 2016 and
Germany in 1933 were in similar positions of hypernationalism and disenchantment with the
status quo. Their respective citizens wanted change and were actively searching for leaders who
were bold and innovative in their approach to national and foreign policy. While Germany was
embattled and struggling to recover from their losses, making them an easy target for Hitler’s
manipulation and brainwashing, America was steadfast in its democratic ideals. After four years
of failing to follow political conventions and countless accusations of wrongdoing, the American
people, with a record 81 million votes, voted Trump out of office.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The exploration of the rhetoric employed by two influential figures, Adolf Hitler and
Donald Trump, has been a subject of scholarly inquiry, delving into historical contexts, rhetorical
strategies, and ethical considerations. Scholars like Ian Kershaw and Allan Bullock have
provided insights into the circumstances that paved the way for Hitler’s rise, emphasizing the
10 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.
10
economic 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 nature
of his rhetoric and the emotional resonance he sought to evoke.12
Turning to contemporary politics, Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Kaltwasser (2017) and Pippa
Norris and Ronald Inglehart (2019) have scrutinized the populist rhetoric of Donald Trump.13
Their analyses encompass Trump’s communication strategies, including the utilization of social
media and the framing of issues in a populist context. These studies provide insights into the
cultural and economic factors that contributed to Trump’s appeal, emphasizing the resonance of
his verbosity among specific segments of the American electorate.
Adding an ethical dimension to the discussion, scholars also engage with the respective
moral implications of Hitler’s and Trump’s rhetoric. In this camp, scholars question the impact on
democratic norms, social cohesion, and the potential erosion of institutional safeguards. This
multifaceted exploration contributes to a nuanced understanding of political rhetoric’s
complexities and its influence on public perception and societal dynamics. Future research in this
field holds the potential to further illuminate the continuities and discontinuities in the rhetorical
tactics 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, but
primarily through a variety of rhetorical exploitations and appeals. To corroborate this claim, this
work will rhetorically dissect historical events, speeches, and actions associated with each leader
and their respective country. Specifically, this comparative analysis will dissect Hitler’s Mein
13 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. Cambridge
University 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.
11
Kampf and Speech to Reichstag in 1939 and Trump’s January 6th and 2020 State of the Union
speeches. 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.
12
CHAPTER TWO
DEFINING DEMAGOGUERY
Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, and
Cleon all have one thing in common: they are all considered demagogues. The term demagogue
originated in ancient Greece during the fifth century B.C.E. –about the time of Cleon. The term
demagogue translates to “leader of the people.”14 Since Cleon’s leadership, the meaning and
connotation of demagogue has changed significantly. Today, a demagogue is defined as any
individual who “appeals to [the people’s] greed, fear, and hatred” only by “stirring up their
feelings… 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 now
most 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 a
result, Cleon was appropriately deemed the first demagogue of political history. Never before
had Athens encountered a leader who sought to lead the city by arousing their passions and
appealing to their prejudices. Cleon, like any politician of his time, wanted his convictions to be
heard before all members of the assembly. Before the Assembly, which met forty times a year on
the Pnyx Hill, Cleon voiced his opinions in an unfamiliar Athenian fashion.18 Time and time
18 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 Quarterly
20, 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.
13
again, Cleon employed his rhetorical skills to promote policies that advanced his own
self-interests. Cleon naturally subscribed to demagogic behavior; disparaging intellectuals,
belittling critics, and lashing out at adversaries. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, even claimed
Cleon “used abusive language and spoke with his cloak girt around him, while all the others used
to speak in proper dress and manner.”19 Aristotle highlights Cleon’s intentional language, calling
attention to his appearance– a ploy to connect to the people before him. A conventional sign of
respect and civility was deliberately disrespected, calling attention to the inherent elitism. As a
result of Cleon’s demagogic reign, a definition of demagoguery is possible. Simply, demagogues
appeal to their audience’s irrationalities, passions, and prejudices by attacking and producing
opposing 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 rhetorical
strategies–consciously and subconsciously. Demagogues understand how to work the three
central aspects of rhetorical argument – logos (the logic that matches the listener’s worldview
and 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 on
pathos– or manipulating the emotions of their audience. In an attempt to fill their crowd with
righteous indignation, a demagogue will masquerade the fear and anger they incite with a sense
of righteousness. As a result, the audience begins to believe their next actions are justified and
logical. In reality, what seems like logos and ethos to the audience is fundamentally based on the
artful 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 and
their 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/.
14
Trump in his 2015 presidential announcement speech claimed, “When Mexico sends its
people…they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems
with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists.”20 In this section of his
speech, Trump introduces the negative impacts owed to the absence of a southern border. He
skillfully employs rhetoric that plays on the fears and concerns of his audience, utilizing the
demagogue’s playbook of appealing to emotions rather than presenting a nuanced and fact-based
argument. Trump’s choice of language is deliberate and provocative, creating a sense of urgency
and alarm. By associating immigrants with “lots of problems,” “drugs,” and “crime,” he taps into
the fear and prejudice of his audience.21 This type of inflammatory rhetoric not only stirs up
emotions but also serves to create a common enemy, a key tactic employed by demagogues
throughout history. Furthermore, Trump’s manipulation of pathos is evident in his assertion that
immigrants are not only bringing problems but are specifically “rapists.”22 This extreme
characterization is designed to evoke strong emotional reactions, tapping into the deepest fears
and concerns of his audience.Trump skillfully uses pathos to override logical and ethical
considerations, creating a narrative that resonates emotionally with the listeners.
Similarly, Hitler’s address at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934 is an inherent example of
demagoguery as it relies heavily on Hitler’s ability to skillfully employ demagogic techniques to
manipulate the emotions of the masses. In his speech, Hitler framed the Nazi regime as the savior
of Germany, appealing to the collective pride and wounded national identity of the audience.23
He strategically used pathos by emphasizing the historical grievances and humiliations that
23 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/.
15
Germany had endured, fostering a sense of victimhood among the German people. Hitler
portrayed the Nazi Party as the only force capable of restoring Germany’s greatness, thereby
exploiting the deep-seated emotions of resentment and longing for retribution.24 Moreover, Hitler
adeptly employed scapegoating, a hallmark of demagoguery, by blaming specific groups for
Germany’s perceived decline.25 He targeted Jews, communists, and other marginalized
communities as the supposed enemies responsible for the nation’s troubles. By creating a
common enemy, Hitler sought to consolidate support and divert attention from the regime’s own
shortcomings.
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. His
gestures, tone, and dramatic pauses were carefully choreographed to elicit strong emotional
responses from the audience.26 By doing so, Hitler aimed to create a bond between himself and
the masses, positioning himself as the embodiment of their collective will and aspirations.
The comparison between Trump’s and Hitler’s speeches underscores the enduring
effectiveness of demagoguery in democracy. Whether in ancient Greece, 20th-century Europe, or
contemporary politics, demagogues exploit human emotions, fears, and prejudices to secure
power and advance their agendas. The parallels between different demagogues and eras highlight
the importance of understanding these patterns to safeguard democratic principles and protect
against 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.
16
ESTABLISHING CREDIBILITY
The projected credibility, authenticity, and character of a demagogue determines the
traction 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 and
maintain the confidence of their supporters through the perceptive lens of credibility. Once a
semblance of credibility is established, a demagogue’s perceived trustworthiness privileges the
leader to sway public opinion, manipulate emotion, and implement controversial policies–
without facing too much resistance– that resonate with the party’s vision.27 Furthermore, the
strategic establishment of credibility through ethos helps demagogues maintain a veneer of
respectability, even when their rhetoric or policies may lack substance or ethical grounding.28
Credibility acts as a shield against scrutiny, allowing demagogues to deflect criticism and
maintain their hold on power. This is particularly significant in the face of challenges or
controversies, as a credible demagogue can weather opposition more effectively, sustaining the
allegiance of their followers.
Ethos plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception of a demagogue’s character. By
projecting an image of competence, sincerity, and moral authority, demagogues can create a
personal connection with their audience.29 This connection fosters a sense of identification and
loyalty, blurring the line between objective analysis and emotional attachment. As a result,
individuals may be more inclined to dismiss contradictory information or engage in motivated
reasoning, further reinforcing the demagogue’s influence.30 In the context of demagoguery, where
30 IBID.
29 Barry McNamara, “The Power of Friendships.” News & 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.
17
the manipulation of truth and distortion of facts is not uncommon, ethos becomes a powerful tool
for shaping reality. A demagogue with established credibility can frame narratives, redefine
norms, and control the discourse, influencing public opinion on a broad scale. This control over
information is integral to the demagogue’s ability to consolidate power and implement their
agenda, regardless of its alignment with the broader public interest.
Hitler strategically used his own story as a symbol of national pride, emphasizing his
transformation from an Austrian to a German citizen.31 By presenting his journey as a microcosm
of Germany’s collective struggles and aspirations, he appealed to a sense of shared identity
among the German people.32 This narrative resonated strongly in a country grappling with the
punitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles and economic turmoil. His credibility was built on a
narrative that positioned him as a charismatic leader who understood the struggles of the German
people.33 Hitler projected an image of authority, often using militaristic and nationalist symbols
to reinforce his connection to the nation. Additionally, his charismatic oratory skills played a
crucial role in building credibility. Hitler’s impassioned speeches often referenced his personal
challenges and triumphs, creating an emotional connection with his audience and fostering a
perception of authenticity and sincerity.34 His political strategists carefully crafted an image that
highlighted his rise from obscurity to leadership, using propaganda and staged public
appearances to disseminate this narrative.
Similarly, Trump’s background as a reality television personality contributed to his adept
communication skills and media presence. This, combined with his unfiltered and often
34 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-180
967790/.
18
unconventional use of social media, allowed him to engage directly with the public, creating a
perception of authenticity and immediacy. The populist rhetoric he employed, emphasizing the
concerns 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 established
political elites, Trump strategically presented himself as an alternative, leveraging his outsider
status to tap into the skepticism and distrust many held toward the conventional norms of
Washington. His “America First” narrative, prioritizing national interests and sovereignty,
resonated with a sense of patriotism, appealing to those who believed domestic concerns had
been neglected in favor of global interests.36
Both Hitler and Trump utilized populist rhetoric, emphasizing a direct connection with
“the people” against perceived elites or enemies. Their speeches often contained emotional
appeals, promising to address the grievances of their followers. This emotional resonance
contributed to the establishment of ethos, as people began to see them as champions who
understood and represented their concerns. Furthermore, both figures were adept at controlling
the 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 resonated
with 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 Men
and Women,’” The Washington Post, April 11, 2023,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-speech-at-republican-national-convention-trump-to-paint-dire-picture-o
f-america/2016/07/21/418f9ae6-4fad-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html.
19
CHAPTER THREE
PLAYING WITH FIRE
Justice 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 to
go down in history, Holmes highlighted the consequences and extremely volatile nature of
rhetoric: rhetoric incites opportunity. Pinpointing the most significant and consequential speech
of a demagogue’s rhetoric can be quite challenging. With a multi-pronged approach, dividing the
research into navigable yet distinct divisions, this work asserts a rhetorical culmination boils
down 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 echoed
throughout America– a movement charged by Trump’s rhetoric. Trump loyalists, galvanized by
his language, darted to the battleground states’ legislatures to “[s]top the vote” and “[s]top the
count.”38 With little traction, seemingly stalled in his efforts, Trump turned to his Vice President
Mike Pense demanding, “Pence…send it back to the states to recertify, and we become
president.”39 As the president of the Senate, the acting vice president maintains a significant
amount of power. Amongst the many powers delegated to the vice president, even as the
president 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.” Just
Security, 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/.
20
Trump, 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!”40
As the clock struck 12 p.m. on January 6th, 2021, Trump climbed out of the presidential
motorcade to address a massive crowd of supporters and their shared opinions on the stolen
election.41 In a desperate yet obvious attempt to crush the will and constitutionally protected
concept 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 of
10,000 enraged supporters, Trump delivered a speech, barely an hour long, which would lead to
one of the most horrific and despicable attacks on American democracy.42 Unquestionably a
momentous 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 a
paramount variable in connecting Trump, demagoguery, and Hitler.
Across the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 70 years before, Hitler mounted a similar
position of power. As the dictator of Germany, Hitler fixed his army’s attention upon the
perceived enemy of the state– the Jews. However, before Hitler’s reign, the Weimar Republic
government operated as a parliamentary republic– a system of government where a parliament, a
chancellor, and a president coexist within a political structure.43 However, during Hitler’s rise to
power, marked by illegitimate and questionable circumstances, his lust for power grew
insatiable. Despite extreme hesitation by President Hindenburg, even denying Hitler’s request
43 For those who are unfamiliar, the Weimar Republic, officially known as the German Reich, was a historical period
of Germany from 9 November 1918 to 23 March 1933, during which it was a constitutional federal republic for the
first time in history.
42 Lisa Masacro, Ben Fox, and Lolita C. Baldor, “‘Clear the Capitol,’ Pence Pleaded: Timeline of Riot Shows,” AP
News, April 30, 2021,
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-army-racial-injustice-riots-only-on-ap-480e95d9d075a0a946e837c3156cdc
b9.
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.
21
twice, Hitler was appointed as Chancellor of Germany in 1933– uniquely positioning Hitler as
second in command.44 Soon, bad health befell President Hindenburg, resulting in his death in
August of 1934.45 President Hindenburg’s death marked the fall of the Weimar Republic and the
rise of Nazi Germany when Hitler assumed the most powerful position in Germany; a tragedy for
Europe, 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 Hitler
boldly yet unapologetically announced his mission and purpose, as leader of Nazi Germany, was
to ensure “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”47 As the wheels of time turned
inexorably, the year 1941 witnessed an intensification of Hitler’s nefarious mission, wherein his
prejudiced ideologies metamorphosed into a systematic and horrifying mass genocide targeting
the Jewish population.48 Hitler’s speech at the Reichstag laid the ideological groundwork for what
would later manifest as the Holocaust. It served as the catalyst that propelled his radical vision
into ruthless action. The unambiguous call for the annihilation of the Jewish people provided a
chilling ideological mandate that reverberated throughout Nazi Germany, galvanizing his
followers and fostering an environment conducive to the implementation of genocidal policies.
This lamentable chapter in history underscores the gravity of the atrocities perpetrated under the
auspices of Hitler’s leadership, casting a somber shadow on the annals of humanity. The
subsequent years bore witness to the brutal transformation of Hitler’s rhetoric into a horrifying
reality. 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 in
a 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.
22
concentration camps, and ultimately, mass extermination, unfolded as a direct consequence of
the sentiments expressed in that fateful Reichstag address. The Holocaust, with its unparalleled
human tragedy, was the tragic culmination of Hitler’s fanatical vision, resulting in the suffering
and 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 Trump
transformed their respective ideas into nationwide missions by employing obscene rhetoric
reliant on falsehoods, emotional draws, and irrationality. Despite the significant time gap, the
language exercised by both leaders bears a remarkable amount of similarities. Each leader
capitalized on their ability to associate themselves as outsiders, maintained a staunch anti-press
association 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, grounds
itself in divisive rhetorical themes of nationalism, media, party politics, economics, and
governance. Therefore, this section “Playing with Fire” aims to determine any specific and
similar aspects of Trump’s January 6th speech and Hitler’s Reichstag speech.
INFLAMING NATIONALISM
Nationalism, 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.50
However, when wielded by a demagogue like Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump, nationalism can
have detrimental effects on society. Nationalism breeds divisiveness by exploiting nationalistic
fervor to vilify minorities or political opponents, fostering an “us versus them” mentality that
50 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/.
23
fractures communities.51 Simultaneously fueling xenophobia and racism, demagogues
manipulate nationalist sentiments to scapegoat marginalized groups, stoking fear and prejudice
for political gain. Nationalism facilitates authoritarianism, enabling demagogues to justify the
erosion of democratic institutions and civil liberties under the guise of protecting national
interests.52 Moreover, nationalism can spur aggression and militarism, as demagogues use it to
justify expansionist agendas or military interventions, risking conflict and instability.53 By its
very nature nationalism enables historical revisionism: demagogues selectively portray the
nation’s past to glorify its achievements while downplaying its darker aspects, hindering
reconciliation and perpetuating injustice.54 While Hitler’s extreme ethnonationalism led to
genocide and world war, Trump’s brand of nationalism, though less extreme, has raised concerns
about democratic erosion and social cohesion in the United States through divisive rhetoric and
policy actions.55
Donald Trump’s political discourse throughout his January 6th speech is punctuated by a
series of powerful statements that underscore his nationalist agenda and often carry racial
undertones. Throughout his speech, Trump frequently touts his administration’s achievements,
proclaiming, “We did things that nobody ever thought possible.56” This assertion serves to bolster
his 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 of
censorship and discrimination, as exemplified by his statement, “And just like the radical left
56 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/.
24
tries to blacklist you on social media.”57 This rhetoric not only reinforces his nationalist narrative
but also paints his adversaries as threats to freedom of speech and expression.
Trump’s language on election integrity often incorporates allegations of widespread voter
fraud and corruption. He asserts, “In no state is there any question or effort made to verify the
identity, citizenship, residency or eligibility of the votes cast,” implying a systematic failure to
uphold the integrity of the electoral process.58 Trump’s language here is accusatory, suggesting
that his political opponents, particularly Democrats, are complicit in allowing voter fraud to
occur. He goes further to claim, “It is also widely understood that the voter rolls are crammed full
of non-citizens, felons and people who have moved out of state and individuals who are
otherwise ineligible to vote. Yet Democrats oppose every effort to clean up their voter rolls. They
don’t want to clean them up. They’re loaded.59” These statements not only cast doubt on the
legitimacy of election outcomes but also perpetuate racial stereotypes, particularly regarding
non-citizens and felons, who are often disproportionately from minority communities. (FN)
Trump’s discourse frequently revolves around immigration, a topic he uses to galvanize
support for his nationalist agenda. He asserts, “If we allow this group of people to illegally take
over our country because it’s illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is
illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information,” framing immigration
as an existential threat to the nation.60 Trump’s language here is inflammatory, suggesting that
immigrants pose a danger to the country’s sovereignty and security. Similarly, Trump’s emphasis
on border security and the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border reinforces his
nationalist narrative, portraying himself as a defender of American interests against external
60 IBID.
59 IBID.
58 IBID.
57 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.
25
threats. 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 his
policies as unpatriotic.61
Similarly, Trump often appeals to a sense of national pride and unity, particularly in his
discussions of American exceptionalism. He proclaims, “We have overwhelming pride in this
great country and we have it deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend and
preserve the government of the people, by the people and for the people,” invoking imagery of
patriotism and shared identity.62 Trump’s language here is emotive, tapping into feelings of pride
and solidarity among his supporters. Additionally, Trump frequently highlights his
administration’s efforts to improve election security, positioning himself as a champion of
democratic 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,” portraying
himself as a reformer fighting against a corrupt political establishment.63
Adolf 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 German
Volk’s sense of national pride, victimhood, and unity, all while promoting a deeply antisemitic
agenda. In this analysis, we will dissect Hitler’s speech, examining his use of language and
rhetoric to appeal to nationalism with an unmistakable antisemitic undertone.
Hitler began his speech by asserting, “Germany has merely realized the right to
self-determination.”64 This statement aimed to justify Germany’s actions as legitimate assertions
64Adolf 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.
26
of national sovereignty, appealing to the Volk’s sense of pride and autonomy. By framing
Germany’s actions as exercises of self-determination, Hitler sought to garner support for his
nationalist agenda, positioning himself as the defender of German interests. Hitler emphasized
the notion of a unified German Volk, stating, “we have before us today a form of representation
of the German Volk which can claim to be a truly constituent body.”65 Here, Hitler invoked the
concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community,” to foster a sense of collective identity
and 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, woven
throughout Hitler’s speech was a pervasive antisemitic narrative, in which Jews were portrayed
as the ultimate enemies of the German Volk. Hitler declared, “Above all, it is international Jewry
which 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 Jews
for Germany’s perceived woes, Hitler sought to deflect blame and rally support for his regime
through the demonization of a common enemy.
Hitler portrayed Germany as the victim of aggression from the West, particularly Britain
and America. He stated, “The rest of the world has looted Germany throughout the past
one-and-a-half decades, has burdened it with enormous debt payments,” painting Germany as
unjustly targeted by Western powers.67 Hitler used adjectives such as “hysteric” and “shaming” to
describe the tactics employed by Germany’s adversaries, further reinforcing the narrative of
victimhood and injustice.68 In a similar fashion, Hitler’s speech also contained elements of
militarism and defiance, with references to Germany’s struggle for survival against external
68 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.
27
threats. He proclaimed, “We fight a truly gigantic struggle to which we have dedicated the entire
force and energy of our Volk,” positioning Germany as engaged in a righteous struggle against
external aggressors.69 Hitler’s use of adjectives such as “irrational” and “capitalist” to describe the
motivations of Germany’s enemies served to demonize them and justify Germany’s militarization
efforts.70
Additionally, Hitler addressed the issue of Jewish immigration, framing it as a threat to
the nation’s security and integrity. He declared, “If the Jews should once again succeed in inciting
the nations to war, the result will not be the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish
race in Europe.”71 In this statement, Hitler conflated Jewish immigration with the specter of war
and portrayed Jews as agents of chaos and destruction. By linking Jewish immigration to broader
geopolitical concerns, Hitler sought to justify his regime’s anti-Semitic policies and galvanize
support for his nationalist agenda. Hitler even relied on his appeal of economic nationalism, with
references 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 at
this realization early rather than too late.”72 Here, Hitler emphasized the importance of national
security in safeguarding Germany’s economic prosperity, appealing to the Volk’s sense of
self-preservation and survival.
The speeches of both Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump stand as chilling testaments to the
power of nationalist rhetoric in shaping public sentiment and mobilizing support for authoritarian
agendas. Despite the temporal and contextual disparities between their respective leaderships,
Hitler and Trump demonstrated remarkable parallels in their manipulation of nationalist
72 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.
28
sentiments. By invoking themes of victimhood, unity, demonization of perceived enemies, and
economic nationalism, both leaders sought to cultivate a fervent allegiance to their visions of
national greatness. Their speeches serve as stark reminders of the dangers inherent in exploiting
nationalism for political gain, highlighting the potential for fear, hatred, and bigotry to permeate
public discourse and threaten the fabric of democratic societies. As we reflect on the lessons of
history, it is imperative to remain vigilant against the allure of demagoguery and to uphold the
values of tolerance, inclusivity, and respect for human dignity in the face of divisive rhetoric.
BLAZING TRUTHS
The manipulation of media and public opinion has been a potent tool for demagogues to
assert and consolidate power. Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump both exploited the media with
remarkable efficacy to propagate their agendas. Central to their demagogic strategies was the
relentless discrediting of the media in order to cast doubt on its credibility and integrity. Under
Joseph Goebbels’s direction, Hitler’s regime famously used propaganda machinery to disseminate
a narrative that vilified dissenting voices and marginalized independent journalism. (FN) As a
prime example, Goebbel said himself, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
will eventually come to believe it.”73 Goebbels’s quote underscores the demagogues’ reliance on
repetition and the amplification of falsehoods to manipulate the public. By continuously
disseminating 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 his
political surrogates attacked mainstream media outlets and labeled them as “fake news” and “the
enemy of the people” with the aim to erode public trust in journalistic institutions.74 By
74 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.
73 Randall Bytwerk, “False Nazi Quotations,” German Propaganda Archive.
29
undermining the press, both leaders sought to control the narrative, shape public opinion, and
consolidate their authority. Understanding the parallels and divergences in how Hitler and Trump
leveraged 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 or
incompetent. 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 traditional
media sources while promoting his own narrative and agenda. Employing a demagogic style
reminiscent of historical autocrats, Trump characterized the press as “fake news media,” alleging
their complicity in perpetrating what he deemed a fraudulent election.76 Through a meticulous
analysis of Trump’s speeches and statements, particularly those concerning media involvement in
election fraud, unsolicited attacks on his presidency, and their role in dividing America, there are
undeniable demagogic characteristics inherent to his speech. By drawing on specific words and
adjectives utilized by Trump, such as “fake news,” “enemy of the people,” and “suppression,” the
calculated nature of his assaults on the media, highlights their profound implications for
democratic discourse and societal cohesion.77
77 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.
30
Trump’s disdain for the media was palpable in his assertion during his most infamous
rally, mere seconds into the speech, the president eagerly announced that “the media will not
show the magnitude of [the] crowd.”78 By framing the media as selective and biased in their
coverage, Trump sought to delegitimize their role as arbiters of truth and public opinion. This
tactic of undermining the credibility of the press was further evidenced when he exclaimed, “We
have hundreds of thousands of people here and I just want them to be recognized by the fake
news media.”79 However, despite Trump’s claims of massive attendance, scholarly estimates
indicated a significantly smaller turnout, with only about 10,000 attendees.80 This stark contrast
between Trump’s assertions and the observed reality highlights his propensity for exaggeration
and the disconnect between his rhetoric and actual events. Such discrepancies further eroded
trust in his messaging and raised questions about his credibility regarding crowd sizes and other
claims. Trump not only sought validation from his supporters but also perpetuated the narrative
of media bias, portraying himself as a victim of their purported agenda. By aligning himself with
the people and positioning the media as adversaries misrepresenting reality or concealing the
truth, Trump fashioned a narrative where he stood as a champion of truth against a supposedly
deceitful and biased media establishment. However, in reality, it is quite the opposite: numerous
fact-checks and independent analyses have consistently shown distortions and falsehoods in
Trump’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 “single
biggest problem” facing the nation. By labeling them as the “enemy of the people,” Trump
80 Lisa Masacro, Ben Fox, and Lolita C. Baldor, “‘Clear the Capitol,’ Pence Pleaded: Timeline of Riot Shows,” AP
News, April 30, 2021,
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-army-racial-injustice-riots-only-on-ap-480e95d9d075a0a946e837c3156cdc
b9.
79 IBID.
78 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.
31
positioned himself as a champion of the populace against a corrupt and deceitful establishment.81
This slander of the press reached its peak when Trump declared, “[o]ur media is not free, it’s not
fair. It suppresses thought, it suppresses speech and it’s become the enemy of the people.”82 Such
inflammatory rhetoric not only manipulated public perception of journalistic integrity but also
fostered 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 such
rhetoric served to justify crackdowns on journalism and dissent. In authoritarian regimes, with
similar structures of demagogic language, a dangerous vilification of the press posed a threat to
the very foundations of democracy, as it undermined the essential role of a free and independent
media in holding those in power accountable and informing the public. Throughout his
presidency, Trump aimed to erode any trust in the media. By repeatedly portraying the media as
partisan actors with malicious intent, Trump fostered an environment where his articulation of
the media as an “enemy of the people” became all too easy to accept for his supporters. This
concerted effort to delegitimize the media not only undermined the public’s faith in objective
reporting but also served to bolster Trump’s own authority and narrative. However, Trump’s
rhetoric extended beyond mere criticism of media practices to outright accusations of collusion
and deceit. He asserted that the election was “stolen by the fake news media,” insinuating their
active participation in undermining the democratic process.83 This narrative gained traction
among his supporters, fueling distrust and discord within American society– a chant of support
soon followed. Moreover, Trump’s insistence on the existence of widespread fraud, despite a lack
83 IBID.
82 IBID.
81 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.
32
of evidence, further exacerbated tensions, as he declared, “the American people do not believe
the corrupt, fake news anymore.”84
In his diatribes against the media, Trump decried their alleged suppression of dissenting
voices. He lamented, “now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression and that’s what
happens in a communist country.”85 However, despite his claims of media suppression, Trump
rarely cited specific instances or evidence to support his assertions. Instead, his accusations
remained largely unsubstantiated, relying more on rhetoric than factual examples. This pattern of
generalized attacks without clear evidence raised questions about the validity of his claims and
highlighted 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 to
account. This narrative of media suppression served to galvanize his base and justify his attacks
on journalistic institutions. Furthermore, Trump’s accusations of media bias extended beyond
traditional news outlets to encompass social media platforms and tech companies. He decried
their censorship of conservative voices, alleging a concerted effort to silence dissent and control
the narrative. Trump’s assertion that “every time I put out a tweet… I get a flag” exemplified his
perception of a coordinated effort to stifle his message and undermine his presidency.86
Just 70 years before, in the tumultuous events of 1939, Adolf Hitler’s demagogic rhetoric
reached new heights as he utilized propaganda to shape public perception and vilify opposition,
particularly targeting the media and Jewish entities. Through a meticulous examination of
Hitler’s speeches and declarations during this period, a clear pattern emerges, revealing his
86 IBID.
85 IBID.
84 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.
33
calculated manipulation of information and his relentless attacks on those who dared to oppose
or criticize his regime.
In dismissing reports contrary to his narrative, such as the fictitious report of German
mobilization allegedly forcing Czechoslovakia to mobilize its armed forces, Hitler perpetuated
falsehoods despite official declarations to the contrary.87 This tactic aimed to undermine the
credibility of external sources and portray Germany as unjustly maligned by the international
press, highlighting Hitler’s willingness to distort facts to suit his agenda. Moreover, Hitler
advocated for an immediate response through propaganda and press to counter perceived attacks
on Germany’s reputation, asserting, “our propaganda and press shall answer immediately to any
such attacks and inform the German Volk of them.”88 This proactive stance aimed to control the
narrative and discredit dissenting voices, showcasing Hitler’s strategic use of media manipulation
to suppress opposition and rally support for his regime.
Central to Hitler’s demagoguery was the scapegoating of Jews and international Jewry for
fermenting tensions and spreading propaganda. He vilified them as instigators of discord,
accusing them of manipulating various forms of media to further their agenda, arguing “despite
a bombardment of by a ‘gigantic Jewish-capitalist instigated propaganda campaign…there is not
a word of truth in all these claims.”89 Desperately searching for words of relief, Hitler stated, “I
believe that, should we succeed in arresting the activities of the Jewish international press
agitators and their propaganda, then a reconciliation between peoples would be speedily
attained.”90 This rhetoric not only reinforced anti-Semitic sentiment but also served as a
justification for his regime’s suppression of dissent and censorship of the media. In the most
90 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.
34
divisive 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.”91
By blaming Jews for societal unrest and portraying their influence in the media as a threat to
peace, Hitler sought to galvanize public opinion against Jews and justify censorship of media
outlets deemed critical of the regime, demonstrating Hitler’s ability to exploit anti-Semitic
sentiment to consolidate power.
Hitler’s attacks on the media extended beyond mere criticism to outright accusations of
agitation and irresponsibility. He blamed an “irresponsible press” for Europe’s tensions, alleging
they spread disquiet among the populace with false alarms.92 This rhetoric aimed to undermine
public trust in independent journalism and justify censorship, showcasing Hitler’s desire to
control 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 the
dissemination of negative information to these groups, Hitler aimed to deflect attention away
from his own regime’s actions and onto supposed enemies of the state. This tactic not only
bolstered his authoritarian rule but also fostered a climate of fear and suspicion, further
solidifying his grip on power.
The parallels between Hitler and Trump in their attacks on the media reveal a shared
strategy of utilizing demagoguery to undermine the credibility of independent journalism and
consolidate power. Both leaders employed rhetoric that extended beyond mere criticism to
outright accusations of agitation, irresponsibility, and even malicious intent on the part of the
93 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.
35
press. By vilifying the media as organizations bound to disseminate falsehoods and inherent
enemies of the state, Hitler and Trump sought to erode public trust in objective reporting and
justify censorship or control over information dissemination. Moreover, their narratives often
scapegoated specific groups, such as Jews or perceived political opponents, as the supposed
architects of media bias or misinformation. This manipulation of public perception through
targeted rhetoric exemplifies the dangers of unchecked demagoguery and the imperative of
defending press freedom and truth in the face of authoritarianism. As history has shown, attacks
on the media are not just assaults on the press but also assaults on democracy itself, underscoring
the critical importance of safeguarding the principles of a free and independent press in any
society.
SCORCHING CONCLUSIONS
As the dust settles on Donald J. Trump’s presidential tenure, it is imperative to undertake
a comprehensive examination of his presidency, its defining moments, and its lasting impact on
American democracy. At the heart of this evaluation lies the unprecedented events of January
6th, 2021, a day that will be etched into history books as a stark reminder of the fragility of
democratic 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 ignited
fervent support among his base while stoking division and controversy across the nation. His
unorthodox approach to governance, marked by impulsive decision-making and brazen disregard
for political norms, upended traditional notions of presidential leadership and tested the
resilience of American institutions. Throughout his presidency, Trump’s penchant for
36
inflammatory rhetoric and media manipulation served to deepen societal divides and undermine
public 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 and
objective reporting. By casting doubt on the legitimacy of the free press, Trump sought to control
the narrative and shape public opinion to suit his agenda.
The culmination of Trump’s presidency and the pinnacle of his assault on democracy
came to a head on January 6th, 2021, when a violent mob of his supporters stormed the United
States Capitol in a brazen attempt to overturn the results of the presidential election. As Congress
convened to certify the electoral college votes, Trump, goaded by his own baseless claims of
election fraud, delivered a fiery speech outside the White House, urging his followers to “fight
like hell” and march on the Capitol to “stop the steal.”94 The scenes that unfolded that day were
nothing short of harrowing. The hallowed halls of Congress were breached, lawmakers were
forced to evacuate, and the very foundation of American democracy was shaken to its core.95 The
insurrection, incited by Trump’s rhetoric and fueled by years of political polarization, laid bare
the 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 of
American democracy, had been threatened as never before. In the weeks and months that
followed, Trump’s presidency drew to a close amidst a whirlwind of controversy and
condemnation. Impeached for a historic second time by the House of Representatives, Trump
faced allegations of inciting an insurrection and betraying his oath of office.96 While ultimately
96 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.
37
acquitted by the Senate, the stain of January 6th would forever tarnish his legacy and cast a
shadow over his presidency.97
The Trump presidency laid bare the deep-seated divisions that continue to plague
American society. The rise of populism, nationalism, and identity politics under his leadership
exposed fault lines that had long simmered beneath the surface, threatening to tear the fabric of
our 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 justice
for all.
All too similarly, Adolf Hitler’s reign as Chancellor and later as Führer98 of Nazi
Germany stands as one of the darkest chapters in human history, marked by unspeakable
atrocities, widespread suffering, and the unfathomable depths of human depravity. Central to
Hitler’s tyrannical rule was his mastery of propaganda and manipulation, epitomized by his
infamous Reichstag speech of 1939. As we reflect on the legacy of Hitler’s reign, it is imperative
to examine the profound impact of this pivotal moment in history and the enduring lessons it
holds for humanity.
The Reichstag speech of 1939 stands as a chilling testament to Hitler’s mastery of
rhetoric and his ruthless pursuit of power. In this address, delivered to the German parliament on
the eve of World War II, Hitler laid bare his expansionist ambitions and his fanatical vision of a
racially pure Greater Germany.99 By invoking nationalist sentiment and demonizing perceived
enemies, particularly Jews, Hitler sought to galvanize public support for his radical agenda and
99Adolf 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/.
38
justify the atrocities that would soon follow. At the heart of Hitler’s speech was his unapologetic
call for the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe”, a chilling declaration of genocidal intent
that would foreshadow the horrors of the Holocaust.100 With chilling precision, Hitler laid out his
vision of a racially homogeneous Europe, free from the supposed contamination of Jewish
influence. In doing so, he unleashed a wave of hatred and violence that would engulf the
continent 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 and
his quest for Lebensraum, or “living space,” for the German people.101 By portraying Germany as
the victim of external aggression and justifying his regime’s expansionist policies as defensive
measures, Hitler sought to legitimize his aggressive actions on the world stage. In the months
and years that followed, Nazi Germany would plunge the world into the deadliest conflict in
human history, leaving a trail of devastation and despair in its wake. Moreover, Hitler’s Reichstag
speech exemplified his mastery of propaganda and manipulation, as he skillfully exploited
nationalist sentiment and racial prejudice to consolidate his power and silence dissent. By
scapegoating Jews and other minorities for Germany’s perceived woes, Hitler sought to deflect
blame and unite the German people behind his regime. Through a relentless campaign of
indoctrination and intimidation, he succeeded in creating a climate of fear and obedience that
allowed him to rule with an iron fist.
As we grapple with the legacy of Hitler’s reign, it is essential to confront the
uncomfortable truths of the past and the enduring lessons they hold for humanity. The Reichstag
speech of 1939 serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked demagoguery and the
devastating consequences of hatred and intolerance. Hitler’s reign offers a sobering reminder of
101 IBID.
100Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945. Speech Delivered by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag on January 30, 1939.
[Washington, D.C.], Jewish Virtual Library.
39
the importance of vigilance and resistance in the face of tyranny. The atrocities committed under
his regime were not inevitable but the result of a series of choices made by individuals who
chose to turn a blind eye to injustice or actively participate in the machinery of oppression. As
we confront the challenges of the present day, we must remain vigilant against the forces of
hatred and division that threaten to undermine the hard-won gains of democracy and human
rights.
The comparative analysis between Trump’s January 6th speech and Hitler’s Reichstag
address reveals a convergence of demagogic strategies rooted in the manipulation of nationalist
fervor and the exploitation of societal divisions. Both speeches exhibit a calculated appeal to
emotive rhetoric, aimed at mobilizing supporters through the vilification of perceived adversaries
and 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 authoritarian
discourse, characterized by appeals to nationalism, the denigration of dissenting voices, and the
incitement of collective action. By examining these speeches within a scholarly framework, we
can discern the underlying mechanisms of demagoguery at play, highlighting the enduring
relevance of historical precedents in understanding contemporary challenges to democratic
governance and societal cohesion.
40
CHAPTER FOUR
LURKING IN THE SHADOWS
In the interplay between light and shadow, lies a realm of uncertainty known as the
penumbra. Here, obscured from the clarity of day, demagogues lurk, weaving webs of deceit and
distortion, particularly in the realm of economics and party politics. Like sinister puppeteers
manipulating unseen strings, these demagogues thrive in the shadows, peddling false narratives
and misleading information to manipulate public perception. Economic and political truths
become malleable, twisted to fit the demagogue’s agenda, while genuine understanding is
shrouded in ambiguity. When demagogues control the narrative, reality is obscured; they employ
sinister tactics to exploit fears, sow discord, and cast a shadow of doubt upon the very fabric of
political existence.
As Justice William O. Douglas once remarked, “The course of true democracy never did
run smooth.”102 Indeed, the volatile currents of democracy are often navigated through the
turbulent waters of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders harness the power of language to
sway the masses and shape the course of history. In this section of analysis, we compare another
two significant speeches: President Donald Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address and Adolf
Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Superficially, these texts may appear unrelated, but a closer examination
reveals striking parallels in their rhetorical strategies, which sheds light on the enduring appeal of
demagoguery throughout political discourse.
Yet again, President Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address stands as a testament to his
mastery of rhetoric and his ability to captivate audiences with his populist message. Against the
102 Terminiello v. Chicago (United States Supreme Court May 16, 1949).
41
backdrop of a deeply divided nation and the specter of impeachment looming large, Trump
seized the opportunity to rally his supporters and reaffirm his vision for America. With
characteristic bombast and bravado, Trump, conforming to many before him, painted a rosy
picture of the nation’s economic prosperity, touting record-low unemployment rates and soaring
stock market indices as evidence of his administration’s success.103 Yet, beneath the veneer of
optimism lay a darker undercurrent of more nativism and xenophobia, as Trump doubled down
on his hardline immigration policies and demonized political opponents as unpatriotic
obstructionists. Opening one of his many sentences with a fiery adverb, “tragically,” Trump
exclaims, “some radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegal
aliens.”104 Under microscopic analysis, even his use of the noun “alien” is exceptionally
dehumanizing, but it is used to replace less inflammatory language like ‘undocumented
immigrants.’ As he continued, Trump sought to cast himself as the embodiment of American
exceptionalism, portraying his presidency as a bulwark against the forces of globalism and
political correctness. Yet, for all his rhetorical flourishes, Trump’s speech ultimately served to
deepen the partisan fault lines that divide the nation, exacerbating tensions and sowing seeds of
discord.
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.105
Penned during his incarceration following the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, Hitler’s manifesto
served as both a manifesto for his radical political agenda and a rallying cry for his devotees.106
Within its pages, Hitler not only vilified Jews, communists, and other marginalized groups as
106 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.
42
scapegoats for Germany’s troubles but also delved deeply into economic and political themes.107
Exploiting widespread discontent and economic instability, Hitler painted a grim picture of a
nation undermined by internal strife and external threats. By harnessing popular grievances and
historical 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 Kampf
became a potent instrument of mass indoctrination, which fueled the flames of hatred and
justified 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’s
Mein Kampf share a common thread: the strategic use of rhetoric to manipulate public opinion
and consolidate power. Both Trump and Hitler understood the power of language to shape
perceptions and influence behavior, leveraging fear, anger, and resentment to mobilize their
respective bases. In Trump’s case, this meant stoking fears of economic crash and cultural
dilution. In Hitler’s case, it meant scapegoating Jews and other minority groups for the nation’s
perceived decline.
One of the most striking parallels between Trump’s State of the Union address and
Hitler’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 the
primacy 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 national
prosperity sentiments.109 For Hitler, it meant forging a new German Reich based on racial purity
and territorial expansion.110As he famously declared in Mein Kampf, “[w]e demand land and
110 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).
43
territory 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.111
In both cases, the rhetoric of national greatness served as a potent rallying cry for disaffected
citizens disillusioned with the status quo. By tapping into a deep-seated longing for meaning and
belonging, Trump and Hitler were able to galvanize support for their radical agendas and
mobilize armies of devoted followers willing to sacrifice everything for the promise of a brighter
future.
In addition, Trump and Hilter’s rhetoric on the economy and party politics exhibit similar
strategies. Both Trump and Hitler were adept at harnessing the power of language to manipulate
public opinion and consolidate power, leveraging fear, anger, and resentment to advance their
radical agendas. Trump’s emphasis on job security, economic prosperity, and his portrayal of
himself as a champion of the American worker echoes Hitler’s rhetoric of economic revival and
national rejuvenation. Similarly, both leaders capitalized on party politics, demonizing their
opponents and promoting a narrative of us versus them to rally their base and marginalize
dissent. By appealing to deep-seated prejudices and exploiting social divisions, they were able to
mobilize support for their respective visions of national greatness and renewal.
SHADOWS OF PROSPERITY
Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf stands as a testament to the extreme rhetorical power wielded
by the Nazi leader, particularly concerning economic manipulation for his own agenda of
111 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).
44
demagoguery and nationalistic fervor. Through his carefully crafted language and propaganda,
Hitler portrayed himself as the savior of the German people, promising to revitalize the economy
and restore the nation to its former glory.112 However, beneath the facade of prosperity and
progress lay a dark and sinister agenda, driven by hatred, intolerance, and a lust for power. Hitler
understood the importance of economic issues in shaping public opinion and rallying support for
his 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 national
economy, Hitler sought to appeal to a broad audience, tapping into the anxieties and frustrations
of the German people during a time of economic hardship and uncertainty.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler emphasized the interconnectedness of the economy with the
well-being of the nation as a whole. He argued that the strength of the economy was essential for
maintaining the health and stability of the state, asserting, “[t]he economy is something that
concerns every single German, no matter whether he is a worker, a peasant, a businessman, or a
professional man.”113 This sentiment underscored Hitler’s populist appeal, portraying himself as
the 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 the
welfare of the German people. Instead, it served as a smokescreen for his true intentions – the
consolidation of power and the pursuit of his radical ideological agenda. Hitler artistically spoke
of its health exclaiming, “[e]conomic difficulties were increasing every day” and was “unable to
recover” until his mission of national and economic recovery was in full effect.114 Hitler sought
to 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).
45
using promises of economic prosperity to manipulate public opinion and rally support for his
extremist policies.
Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler espoused the idea of the “social state,” arguing that the
state had a responsibility to ensure the well-being of its citizens.115 He declared, “Today we know
that this can be achieved only on the foundations of the social state. We do not need any
so-called slogans, but we do need a state which fully satisfies its social responsibilities towards
the individual citizen.”116 This rhetoric was intended to create the illusion of a caring and
benevolent government, one that was committed to addressing the needs of the people and
promoting social justice. However, Hitler’s concept of the “social state” was deeply rooted in his
twisted ideology of racial superiority and anti-Semitism.117 Under the guise of economic reform
and social welfare, Hitler sought to implement policies that would exclude and marginalize
certain groups within German society, particularly Jews and other minorities. By scapegoating
these groups for Germany’s economic woes, Hitler was able to deflect blame from his own failed
leadership and maintain support for his authoritarian regime.
Hitler’s manipulation of economic issues extended beyond mere rhetoric – it was also
reflected in his policies and actions as Chancellor of Germany.118 Under Hitler’s leadership, the
Nazi regime implemented a series of economic measures aimed at strengthening the nation and
consolidating power.119 These measures included public works projects, rearmament programs,
and the promotion of autarky – economic self-sufficiency – through protectionist policies and
trade restrictions.120 However, Hitler’s economic policies were ultimately driven by his
120 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).
46
militaristic 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 of
economic activity must be the individual.”121 This statement encapsulated Hitler’s belief in the
primacy of the state over the individual, as well as his willingness to sacrifice the well-being of
the German people in pursuit of his imperialist agenda.
Despite Hitler’s grandiose promises of economic revitalization, the reality was far more
bleak. As he himself acknowledged, “[t]he economy was suffering more and more.”122 Economic
troubles persisted under Hitler’s rule, exacerbated by the regime’s reckless spending,
militarization, and disregard for the basic needs of the population.123 Unemployment remained
high, 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 external
forces and internal enemies for Germany’s woes. He justified his authoritarian rule and
repression 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, masking
the 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 mirrors
Adolf Hitler’s manipulation of economic themes for his own agenda and demagoguery. Through
carefully crafted rhetoric, Trump sought to portray himself as the champion of American
prosperity, 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).
47
In 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 unprecedented
economic boom — a boom that has rarely been seen before. We have created 5.3 million new
jobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs — something which almost
everyone said was impossible to do, but the fact is, we are just getting started.”125 This statement
echoes Hitler’s own grandiose promises of economic revitalization in Mein Kampf, appealing to
the aspirations and desires of the American people for a better future. Trump went on to tout the
rising wages and declining unemployment rates under his administration, painting an ideal
picture of the American economy. He declared that “[w]ages are rising at the fastest pace in
decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I promised to fight for, faster than anyone
else. Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. The United States economy is
growing almost twice as fast today as when I took office, and we are considered far and away the
hottest economy anywhere in the world.”126 These claims, while partially based in reality, are
also characterized by exaggeration and selective interpretation of economic data.
Trump’s emphasis on tax cuts and deregulation as drivers of economic growth further
reflects his agenda of catering to corporate interests and the wealthy elite. He boasted, “[w]e
passed 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 income
inequality, echoing the criticisms leveled against Hitler’s economic policies in Mein Kampf.128
Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of
scapegoating marginalized groups for economic woes. He claimed that “[n]o issue better
128 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.
48
illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal
immigration. Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives
behind walls and gates and guards. Meanwhile, working-class Americans are left to pay the price
for 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 immigration
results in reduced jobs, lower wages, and increased crime reflects his populist narrative that
portrays immigrants as economic and social threats to native-born Americans. This narrative
plays into fears about job insecurity and competition for resources, resonating with those who
feel economically vulnerable or marginalized. Furthermore, Trump’s reference to “wealthy
politicians and donors” who advocate for open borders while living in gated communities
underscores his portrayal of the political elite as out of touch with the everyday struggles of
working-class Americans.130 By contrasting the privileged lifestyles of these elites with the
perceived 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 scapegoating
of Jews and other minorities for Germany’s economic troubles, perpetuating fear and division for
political gain.
In the realm of political discourse, both Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Trump’s 2020 State of
the Union address cast shadows of demagoguery and manipulation. Hitler wielded economic
themes to advance his radical agenda, while Trump used economic success as a veil for his
underlying motives. Both exploited economic grievances, fostering division and inequality. By
shedding light on these shadows, we confront the dangers of demagoguery and safeguard
130 IBID.
129 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.
49
democracy from manipulation and tyranny. Yet, lurking within these shadows lies a reminder of
the darkness that threatens to engulf societies when rhetoric is used to obscure truth
Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address epitomize the shadows
of demagoguery and manipulation that have haunted political discourse. Despite their temporal
and ideological disparities, both leaders demonstrated a remarkable ability to harness economic
rhetoric 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 for
his 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 the
shared yet concealed character of demagoguery, seemingly inherent, in both leader’s rhetoric.
SHROUDED PARTISANSHIP
Partisanship, a fundamental aspect of political engagement, encompasses the unwavering
loyalty and support individuals exhibit toward a particular political ideology, leader, or party.
While overt displays of partisanship are often observable through explicit declarations of
allegiance, a subtler manifestation operates in the background, exerting its influence
surreptitiously.131 This covert form of partisanship remains largely unacknowledged, yet it plays
a pivotal role in shaping individual perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors within the political
sphere.132 Within the context of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders exploit societal
132 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.
50
divisions and inflame populist sentiments to bolster their authority, this hidden undercurrent of
partisanship operates as a potent force, amplifying the resonance and impact of demagogic
agendas.
Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Donald Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address serve as
poignant examples of how partisanship intertwines with demagogic rhetoric, exhibiting
characteristic traits of covert and implicit allegiance. Mein Kampf, Hitler’s infamous manifesto,
embodies the epitome of partisan fervor, promoting a virulent nationalist and supremacist
ideology aimed at galvanizing support for the Nazi Party. Through its manipulation of language
and 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 his
opponents. Through veiled references to divisive issues and polarizing rhetoric, Trump harnesses
the covert currents of partisanship to rally support for his administration and undermine
dissenting voices.
While overt displays of partisanship are often conspicuous, this covert form operates
subtly and influences individual decision-making without explicit acknowledgment. Within the
realm of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders exploit societal divisions to consolidate power,
this covert undercurrent of partisanship assumes heightened significance, catalyzing demagogic
agendas.
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 on
the stark differentiation between one’s own group and the perceived “other” — in Hitler’s case,
51
the so-called “Aryan race” versus various other groups he deemed inferior or threatening.133 This
method of polarizing groups is instrumental in rallying support by fostering a sense of unity
against 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 his
followers through a shared animosity.134 Such tactics are not merely historical footnotes but
serve as a warning of the potency of divisive rhetoric in eroding societal cohesion. This
mechanism works by simplifying complex social and political issues into binary oppositions,
which makes it easier to mobilize support through emotional manipulation rather than through
reasoned debate or factual accuracy. The danger of this approach lies in its ability to dehumanize
the “other,” reducing individuals to mere stereotypes or scapegoats. In doing so, it becomes
alarmingly simple to justify discrimination, aggression, and even violence against those who are
cast as the enemy. For example, Hitler exclaims, “[t]he more modest his [a bourgeoisie] outward
behavior, the more malicious his attacks and the more evil his criticism became. And this malice
was directed not only against my person but above all against the people of whose mouthpiece he
claimed to be. Thus, for example, he declared with impudent mendacity that the ‘traitors’ among
the bourgeoisie were ‘the real leaders of the nation.’”135 This quote illustrates Hitler’s portrayal of
an internal enemy within the German nation – in this case, the bourgeoisie who opposed his
ideology – fostering a sense of solidarity among his supporters while demonizing those who
opposed or criticized his movement. Hitler’s adept use of this tactic in Mein Kampf reveals a
chilling insight into the psychology of partisanship and demagoguery— illustrating how easily
fear and prejudice can be weaponized to achieve power. By examining these strategies, we gain a
135 IBID.
134 IBID.
133 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).
52
deeper understanding of the critical importance of vigilance against the re-emergence of such
divisive tactics in contemporary discourse.
Adolf Hitler’s approach in Mein Kampf reveals a nuanced understanding of the power
inherent in charismatic leadership and the construction of a cult of personality. This strategic
fabrication is pivotal, not only as a means of asserting control but also in engendering an
unwavering sense of allegiance among followers. Hitler writes: “All great movements are
popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred
into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the
midst of the people.”136 Here, Hitler positions himself as the torchbearer, suggesting that his
words and actions have the power to incite and lead the masses. By portraying himself as the
catalyst for change and framing his leadership as indispensable to the movement’s success, Hitler
reinforces the idea of his own indispensability and elevates his persona above that of his
followers and contributes to the cult of personality surrounding him.
Through carefully crafted public image and rhetoric, Hitler positioned himself as not
merely 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 This
creation of a larger-than-life persona, seemingly possessing superhuman qualities and insights, is
a hallmark of demagoguery that taps deeply into human psychology. The mechanics of this tactic
lie in its ability to bypass rational judgment, appealing directly to the emotional and aspirational
facets of human nature. People are naturally drawn to figures who appear extraordinarily
confident and capable, especially in times of uncertainty or hardship. By presenting himself as
137 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-180
967790/.
136 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1938).
53
the singular solution to the nation’s woes, Hitler manipulated this inclination to secure a fervent
base of support. This emotional bond, once established, made questioning or opposing him not
just a political dissent but a betrayal of personal loyalty and belief.
However, President Trump’s rhetoric is heavily steeped in partisanship, both overtly and
covertly, as evidenced by his choice of language and the issues he addresses. In his speeches, he
often employs direct appeals to partisan values associated with the Republican Party, such as in
his proclamation that “[o]ur agenda is relentlessly pro-worker, pro-family, pro-growth, and, most
of 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 in
advocating for blue-collar workers opposes traditional conservative principles, sparking debates
among scholars as to whether this was another political yet populist maneuver to maintain his
winning coalition. Similarly, Trump’s assertion that “[t]ogether, we will continue to reaffirm that
America will never be a socialist country” reflects his strategic use of fear-mongering to stoke
opposition to left-leaning policies and ideologies.139 Trump asserts that if the left were to
dominate the political atmosphere, America would regress into a state of socialism, undermining
the principles of free enterprise and individual liberty upon which the nation was founded. This
narrative perpetuates a dichotomy of “us versus them,” framing the left as a radical force
threatening the fabric of American society. Such rhetoric aims to galvanize support by tapping
into fears of economic redistribution and government control, thereby reinforcing his political
base and widening the ideological divide. By leveraging these hot-button topics, Trump not only
reinforces his image as a staunch defender of conservative values but also deepens the
139 IBID.
138 Donald J. Trump. “2020 State Of The Union Address.” February 4th, 2020. Washington, D.C.
54
ideological divide within his audience, further solidifying his position as the leader of the
right-wing movement.
While some of Trump’s rhetoric may appear anodyne on the surface, it often contains
covert partisan messaging, strategically designed to reinforce his political narrative. For instance,
he glorifies American history and achievements, subtly suggesting that his administration is
responsible for making America even greater. Trump claims that “[t]he American nation was
carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and
women ever to walk on the face of the Earth,” tapping into the mythology of American
exceptionalism and valorizing the pioneer spirit.140 Moreover, his assertion that “[o]ur ancestors
built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making it
greater than ever before!” not only emphasizes his administration’s purported accomplishments
but also subtly frames his presidency as a continuation of the nation’s illustrious legacy.141 These
statements not only evoke a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism, appealing to a broad
audience, but also subtly associate his leadership with the narrative of American greatness.
Throughout his speeches, Trump strategically uses language that reinforces partisan
divisions while positioning himself as the champion of conservative values. He celebrates the
accomplishments 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 and
highly respected again!”142 These statements not only tout his administration’s achievements but
also implicitly suggest that those who oppose him are against the prosperity and well-being of
the nation. By intertwining his policies with patriotic rhetoric and divisive issues, Trump
solidifies 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.
55
Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Donald Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address offer
poignant illustrations of how partisanship intertwines with demagogic rhetoric, exhibiting traits
of both overt and covert allegiance. Hitler’s manifesto embodies virulent nationalism and
supremacy, appealing to hidden biases and prejudices to foster a sense of collective identity
under 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 support
by polarizing groups and fostering a sense of unity against perceived enemies. Hitler’s
vilification of specific groups in Mein Kampf serves to galvanize followers through shared
animosity, while Trump’s subtle references to divisive issues in his address mobilize support by
tapping into deep-seated fears and prejudices. The construction of a cult of personality is also
central 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’s
glorification of American history and achievements subtly associates his leadership with
narratives of greatness.
56
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUDING INSIGHTS
This scholarly examination underscores the striking similarities in Adolf Hitler and
Donald Trump’s rhetoric and demagogic attributes. By delving into facets such as nationalism,
media manipulation, party dynamics, economic policies, governance approaches, and power
transitions, a tapestry of parallels that transcends temporal and cultural boundaries becomes
evident. Furthermore, it becomes evident that both leaders exploited similar tactics to cultivate a
fervent base of support, capitalize on societal grievances, and advance their political agendas.
While acknowledging these parallels, it is imperative to maintain scholarly rigor and
contextual sensitivity. Drawing direct equivalences between Hitler and Trump risks
oversimplification and can undermine the complexities of their respective historical moments.
Instead, this nuanced examination highlights the enduring patterns of charismatic leadership and
populist appeal that transcend individual personalities. Such comparative scholarship not only
enriches understanding of political phenomena but also provides insights into the broader
dynamics of power, ideology, and mass mobilization. Moreover, by contextualizing the speeches
and actions of Hitler and Trump within broader socio-political frameworks, this work elucidates
the underlying structural factors that shape the rise and fall of demagogic movements. This
interdisciplinary approach facilitates a deeper comprehension of the interplay between leadership
styles, institutional dynamics, and socio-economic forces, contributing to more informed debates
and policy interventions.
This analysis offers valuable insights into the enduring traits of demagoguery and their
implications for democratic governance. No matter the subject of analysis, striking rhetorical
57
parallels can be drawn between Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump, both of whom rose to political
prominence through charismatic rhetoric and the exploitation of nationalist sentiments. Hitler’s
Reichstag speech in 1933, marked by scapegoating and calls for unity, bears resemblance to
Trump’s divisive rhetoric in his January 6th speech, where he perpetuated false claims of election
fraud and encouraged his supporters to “fight like hell.”143 Similarly, Hitler’s Mein Kampf
outlined his supremacist ideology and vilification of certain groups, echoing Trump’s
inflammatory 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 opinion
and undermine democratic institutions. Thus, while the historical contexts may differ, the
emergence of demagogic leadership characterized by authoritarian tendencies and appeals to
nativism underscores the enduring relevance of examining the parallels between Hitler and
Trump, facilitating the portrayal of Trump as a demagogue in his own right.
143 Donald Trump. “January 6th Speech.” January 6th, 2021. Washington, D.C.

 

Download PDF & SHARE

Rhetorical Demagoguery_ An Exploration of Trump_s and Hitler_s Ri