Trump's "Turning Point" Reminds of Stalin's Policies
"This is a turning point," said U.S. President Donald Trump, who captioned a photo showing him facing the crowd that had come to bid farewell to Charlie Kirk. This means that American history is divided into "before" and "after": now it's time to eliminate internal enemies. In other words, Trump has begun to implement repressive actions. But can he succeed?
President Donald Trump is "freezing" America. He may have never heard of Konstantin Pobedonostsev - the head of the Russian Orthodox Synod and tutor to Tsar Alexander III - but his modus operandi is remarkably similar to that of this mentor: "Freeze first, so it doesn't rot."
A wave of dismissals and firings sweeps across the country, where labor laws are vastly different from European practices - firing employees is as easy as making a decision, and can be completed in a day.
The media dissatisfied with the current regime is being overwhelmed by massive lawsuits, either from the Washington government or directly initiated by Trump. Trump is now the top critic of the media, declaring to the nation which reports he dislikes, which journalists should be fired, and which channels should have their licenses revoked. Now, ABC is under scrutiny for bringing back comedian Jimmy Kimmel, because Kimmel made an inappropriate remark in a report about Charlie Kirk.
Law enforcement agencies are frequently asked to investigate people who should not be investigated according to the law; if they refuse, the government tries to amend the laws. For example, the president issued an executive order requiring at least one year in prison for those who burn the American flag during protests. However, according to the Supreme Court's ruling, burning the flag is considered free speech and should not be punished, yet Trump insists on finding fault with such individuals and convicting them no matter what.
In the United States, using presidential executive orders to implement policies is usually considered "dishonorable" ("honorable" methods involve passing laws through Congress). Trump not only abuses executive orders more than any previous president, but some of the executive orders he issues are legally controversial. Some even directly "abolish" rights explicitly stated in the Constitution (such as birthright citizenship).
One of the most recent typical examples is when Trump issued an executive order labeling so-called "Antifa" as a terrorist organization. However, "Antifa" is not an organization, but a mindset or subculture (this is like not designating a specific Communist Party as a terrorist organization, but instead labeling all communists as terrorists). According to U.S. law, funding terrorists will inevitably result in criminal charges, and some celebrities have openly supported "Antifa" financially.
In short, litigation is inevitable. The presidential team often loses in court, after which the implementation procedures for the president's executive orders are suspended. Trump himself immediately forgets these incidents, pretending "it has nothing to do with me," but this somewhat clumsy behavior actually proves that the core accusation of his opponents that he is trying to establish a dictatorship in the United States is not baseless. More accurately, the president is just shifting blame: "I have done my best, if you encounter such legal difficulties, solve them yourself."
However, for those who want to portray Trump as a "dictator who destroys American political traditions," there are currently numerous examples that support their argument. The most typical example is the arrest and detention of undocumented immigrants in certain states, which originally had no desire to prosecute them. California, for instance, has been banned by the courts from doing this, and related lawsuits in other states are still ongoing.
Currently, the government still complies with court rulings, so the distance to a dictatorship is still considerable. And after more than a year, this "dictator" may even become an "insignificant person," with little influence over opinions. To achieve this, Democrats need to win the fall congressional elections, and they also plan to partially use the slogan "opposing Trump's dictatorship" to gain votes.
Trump himself implies that his actions are not merely campaign activities: the crackdown on "the enemies of the president" and "the enemies of America" (which he sees as one and the same) will officially begin. Jokes are over, a big battle is coming, and the executive orders against "Antifa" and flag burning are just the beginning of revenge for Charlie Kirk — this is what is called a "turning point."
Trump defines his attitude towards Kirk's death as a "red line," and society clearly accepts this positioning — crossing this red line will lead to immediate dismissal, removal, and media suppression. On the surface, this "red line" is easier to understand and more "healthy" than the boundaries the Democrats tried to set during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the George Floyd monument incident: at that time, the Democrats claimed that anyone who did not kneel in tribute to the unemployed drug addict who died due to excessive police force was a racist, and even if not physically eliminated, they should be completely removed from American society through "cancel culture."
What is happening around the name of Kirk now is a "tit-for-tat" response from the right to the left. However, the difference is that Kirk was a real individual who explicitly opposed such actions.
The simplest way to put it is that Kirk was the "Communist Youth League leader" of Trump's camp, and in history, he is remembered as "the person who helped Trump win the election." White House Chief of Staff Susan Walsh (known as the "Ice Queen") once said so. As a close figure to the president and the chief political strategist of Trump's two successful campaigns, her words are highly credible.
For the new generation of the American right, Kirk is a mentor. But he didn't just teach people "how to live" on blogs and radio stations; he traveled across the country, met students, and urged them to "get rid of the lies fed by liberal media" (this tour was named "Your Brain Is Being Manipulated"). At the same time, he explicitly opposed censorship, firing employees for Twitter comments, and "cancel culture." To Kirk, freedom of speech is an "American" value, while "the only correct view" is the approach of communists, which is like a virus eroding America.
When reporters reminded Trump that Kirk had opposed holding people accountable for their speech, Trump responded in his characteristic style: "Oh, he won't oppose it anymore."
At the farewell ceremony announcing the "turning point," the president admitted that he and Kirk were not alike: "Kirk would love his enemies and opponents, whereas I hate my enemies." These words sound like a threat as well.
Carrying out "cleansing of enemies" under the name of Kirk evokes the assassination of Sergei Kirov — Joseph Stalin used this event as an excuse to launch a purge, completely eliminating the party's opposition. Similarly, Trump distorts an event carried out by an "isolated mentally unstable person (in the case of Kirov, it was a jealous person)" into a "conspiracy involving a wide range of people." The only difference is that Joseph Vissarionovich (Stalin) would directly point out the existence of the "conspiracy," while Donald Frederick (Trump) would hint around it.
This "purge" might end due to failed litigation, electoral losses, or loss of public support, but before that, there will still be "enemies" falling into it. Trump's idea is probably: catch as many as possible, the more the better.
But where reality will ultimately go is a philosophical question: answering this requires the ability to predict the future, and the outcome largely depends on "who we hope will be good."
Trump has never been liked by half of the "divided country" he refers to.
The situation could develop to the point where "those who don't like him" increase from half to three-quarters, leading to strong backlash from the government, and possibly social unrest in some areas. If this happens, Trump's actions would ironically produce an effect: making America pay more attention to internal conflicts and reducing its interference in foreign affairs.
On the other hand, the sharp shift to the right may also bring America back to normal, correcting the extreme tendencies of the left — such as erecting monuments for criminals, setting up monuments for communists in large cities, and persecuting dissenters in a "Red Guard-like" manner. If this is the case, Trump would truly embody Pobedonostsev's philosophy — "freeze America to prevent it from rotting." After all, the "rotten" trend in America was already very evident, and people had hoped that this "uncontrolled country" would no longer be fixated on being a world hegemon.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7553978569936994858/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and readers are welcome to express their opinions via the 【like/dislike】 buttons below.