“The assumption was that voters would be turned off by seeing Trump for what he is — authoritarian, pitiless, hateful — and would recognize him as a kind of Hitler.” “Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has compared US President Donald Trump’s “America First” concept to Nazi propaganda.” Expressions like these have plagued the media since President Donald Trump was elected to his first term of leadership in 2016, and have shown no signs of dissipating. There’s even a name for them: Godwin’s Law. Are these assertions true? Has our great, representative democracy been dominated by a radical authoritarian comparable to the notorious WWII genocidaire who sanctioned the systematic murder of millions? Whether this is accurate is not the basis of my argument at this juncture. Rather, I am largely concerned with the fascinating language we use when referring to President Trump, a phenomenon which I would argue is overlooked and potentially consequential. Ultimately, my position here is this: one must understand that when we use strong accusations, particularly without an adequate understanding of the historical context(s), we may be inadvertently desensitizing ourselves to and/or completely misunderstanding what democratic erosion is. 

Essential Context

To commence, let’s revisit the phrase I referenced above; Godwin’s Law. The expression was promulgated by American author and lawyer, Mike Godwin, and essentially refers to the pseudoscientific idea that, “As an online discussion continues, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or to Nazis approaches one.” Interestingly, Godwin himself is not opposed to the comparison of Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, and has noted in an interview that he believes there is nothing unequivocally incorrect about such a connection. Regardless of Godwin’s approval, President Trump has long been deemed as “the American Hitler.” Going back to 2016, articles circulated telling of scenarios such as American comedian Bill Maher’s reference to Trump’s rallies being “Hitler-y” on his HBO show, or even a Saturday Night Live special in which a fake advertisement was run about how a campaign like Trump’s hadn’t been seen since 1930’s era Germany. But what does Godwin’s Law, specifically the comparison of President Trump to Hitler, have to do with our understanding of democratic erosion? Before I answer that, perhaps I should explain what democratic erosion is. Democratic erosion (or democratic backsliding—the terms are used interchangeably) is essentially defined as “[…] the state-led debilitation or elimination of any of the political institutions that sustain an existing democracy.” Reverting to my question, this can only be answered by considering the history of democratic erosion under Hitler’s Third Reich. 

A Quick Analysis of Hitler’s Democratic Erosion 

Enter Germany circa 1932, a nation governed by the Reichstag–the legislative assembly under the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. But this system which had presided over Germany since 1894 would soon be no more. By January of 1933, with the convenient presence of political instability and support from the traditional elite, Adolf Hitler convinced then-president, Paul von Hindenburg, to appoint him as chancellor of Germany. After being sworn in, Hitler–an avid hater of the Weimar Republic–immediately began instituting methods to eradicate democracy in “the Fatherland.” By way of legalities, Hitler wasted no time implementing laws that oppressed oppositions in elections and allowed those whom his party deemed as “undesirables” to be persecuted, imprisoned, and slaughtered in concentration/extermination camps. 

But… Didn’t Donald Trump Agree with Hitler?

I am certain that at least some readers are familiar with alleged ideas Donald Trump has perpetuated about Hitler–ideas which, if true, are uncomfortable to say the least. In example, President Trump was accused by John Kelly, his former chief-of-staff, of saying, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.” But even under the assumption that President Trump did make this disturbing comment, we cannot simply take the vexing assertion at face value and accept it as gospel, just as we cannot mindlessly adopt the anti-semitic rhetoric spewed by the Nazi Party and its collaborators which deemed Jewish individuals as “vermin.”  

When dealing with a character like Donald Trump, an outspoken, provocative, entrepreneurial, charismatic speaker with no considerable presence in politics prior to the few years leading up to his first presidential term, we have to shift our focus from what lies above the surface to tactics. Trump has a verifiable reputation as an instigator, and there is typically an agenda where he is involved (ie. fear-mongering to raise poll numbers). But are we ever in an appropriate position to compare a provocateur with a political agenda to one of history’s most infamous war criminals? We have established at this point that life under Adolf Hitler in Nazi-occupied Europe was an authentic example of democratic backsliding to put it lightly. Is this to say that democratic backsliding doesn’t have more than one face and cannot exist outside authoritarianism and genocide? Of course not. However, if we are going to deem Trump and leaders like him as Nazis, then we better ensure that we are doing so without ignorance of all the traumas and consequences such a designation possesses. I fear such a comparison has some pretty severe repercussions.

Criticism? Yes. Using Hitler as a Launchpad? No. 

All things considered, my goal here is neither to defend nor condemn President Trump. I am merely using him as a contemporary example for an issue that has been ever-present in media politics since before there ever was a Donald Trump. The use of Adolf Hitler as an object of comparison is certainly not unique to President Trump, and this is reaffirmed by the necessity for a rule like Godwin’s Law. If using Adolf Hitler as a means of comparison in cases where a leader exhibits questionable behavior was completely acceptable and had no potential setbacks, there would be no need for rules which evaluate the problematic nature of said comparison. While being politically aware and producing scholarship evaluating our country’s leadership are crucial, we must still be cognizant of our verbiage; not because we aren’t entitled to the expression of criticism and opinion, but because when we become too lax with using comparisons associated with oppression, war, and genocide, all of which are relative to democratic erosion, we may fail to grasp the harsh reality of these concepts. 

Even so, the position I aim to emphasize is one which is commonly challenged. One may ask, “What is the issue with calling a spade a spade? If I am able to identify trends in a leader’s behavior with trends in Hitler’s behavior, why should I refrain from such a convenient comparison?” The hard truth, reader, is that when we appropriate Godwin’s Law and throw around the name of Adolf Hitler as if it’s a buzzword, we–perhaps completely unintentionally–attempt to equate our situation to those of Holocaust victims in order to make such a comparison reasonable. This kind of behavior is misleading, dangerous, and painful for survivors of true totalitarian violence. Don’t just take my word for it. A quick Google search reveals the sentiment of individuals like Polish Holocaust survivor, Jerry Wartski, a Jewish individual whose parents were murdered in the Shoah (the Hebrew term used to describe the Holocaust). He showed no hesitations in declaring his stance on former Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ comparisons of Trump to Hitler. In a moving interview with the New York Post in October of 2024, Wartski left no room for questions with, “I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes,” as he bravely lifted the sleeve of his shirt to expose his tattooed arm which was forcibly marked in Auschwitz. He further revealed, “For her to accuse President Trump of being like Hitler is the worst thing I ever heard in my 75 years living in the United States.” And he finally expressed that Harris, “owes my parents and everybody else who was murdered by Hitler an apology for repeating this lie.” Mr. Wartski would even go on to defend Donald Trump’s campaign, but I digress. I would confidently argue that we are in no position to argue against a survivor of a genocide which claimed tens of millions of lives, over six million being Jewish lives. 

Simply put, this reach of a comparison is entirely counterproductive; not only because the Hitler comparison is harmful to the memory of the Holocaust, but it serves as an odd form of fear mongering which simultaneously takes away from the severity of our own political reality, which may very well include democratic erosion. One must confront the fact that democratic erosion needn’t hide behind the name of an infamous war criminal. This dangerous phenomenon rears its ugly head when the perfect storm of corrupt leadership and political instability emerges. If we are too caught up in alarmism, perhaps our own immediate leadership crisis (or lack thereof… I’ll let you be the judge, reader) may fly right over our heads. So what should we do instead? The answer is applicable in many contexts: rather than potentially invalidating the millions of victims of the worst documented genocide in world history, let’s shift the motivation to identifying what may be precursors of democratic erosion in our leadership and devote our energy to starting an educated conversation.