A recent chat between MSNBC hosts Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, the spotlight turned to the deliberate language choices of former President Donald Trump and how they might sway public perception. This was reported by Raw Story on Saturday, November 25, 2023.
The discussion mainly revolved around Trump’s use of terms like ‘vermin’ and his habit of branding opponents as ‘fascists,’ a trend that caught Maddow’s attention.
This talk unfolded during Maddow’s guest appearance on the podcast Why Is This Happening? where she also dived into her book, Prequel, exploring the fight during World War II to protect American democracy from Nazi threats.
More Read
Maddow drew connections between Trump’s current language and his previous use of fake news, pointing out how the once-powerful term lost its punch through overuse.
According to Maddow, Trump’s constant use of fascist follows a similar path, turning into a repetitive phrase that risks losing its meaning.
He has to save the world from the fascist, Maddow noted, highlighting Trump’s explicit use of language reminiscent of fascist ideologies, such as labeling internal dissenters as ‘vermin’ in need of extermination.
Maddow argued that Trump knows the impact of his words, crafting a narrative that portrays his opposition as existential threats to America.
In response, Trump’s campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, brushed off the claims as “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” suggesting that critics are desperately trying to undermine the former president.
Maddow’s worry is about potential desensitization due to the constant and indiscriminate use of terms like ‘fascist.’
She warned that the rapid-fire use of the same word could lead to a situation where the word ‘fascist’ doesn’t mean anything anymore, and we don’t have any word anymore to describe what this is that he’s trying to get us to do.
The interview highlighted the power dynamics in political discourse and how effective language choices can shape public perception.
Maddow’s comparison to Trump’s past use of fake news emphasizes the possible consequences of linguistic repetition.
As the political landscape evolves, the conversation between Hayes and Maddow underscores the nuanced role language plays in influencing public opinion and the potential fallout when words lose their intended impact through overuse.
The careful selection of words by political figures becomes a crucial element in shaping narratives, and Maddow’s insights offer a thought-provoking perspective on the lasting effects of linguistic choices in the realm of political communication.
