A few years ago, certain ideologues in the mainstream media began preaching the belief that Barack Obama was a man hell-bent on destroying American democracy. Words like “Obaminism” (A shoddy portmanteau of “Obama” and “communism”) and “stealth socialism” entered the American vocabulary. Books were written with names like “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” “The Manchurian President,” and “Radical-in-Chief.” It was revealed within that Obama was apparently a socialist, perhaps a communist, and was tied to everyone from Hitler to Mao. The comparison of Obama to men who killed millions of people is obviously ridiculous, but what is sillier still is that totalitarian comparisons of Obama are part of a consistent trend in American politics. Let’s label it the Call-The-Other-Guy-A-Dictator strategy (CTOGD).
CTOGD is not a new rhetorical strategy. Everywhere democracy thrives, somebody will capitalize on peoples’ fear of the unknown and the specter of dictatorship. But the modern American CTOGD argument essentially arose out of Newt Gingrich’s aggressive campaigning style in the mid-90s. Since then its been nothing but Hitler comparisons. Well, not really, but since the Gingrich Revolution rhetoric has become far more contentious and sectarian. Yet the totalitarian rhetoric is not a Republican phenomenon alone: Remember how furious liberals were during the Bush II years? There were cries of dictatorship during the Patriot Act debates, Nazism during Bush’s anti-immigration efforts and corporatism during the attempts to privatize Social Security. Like the efforts to label Obama a totalitarian, the CTOGD strategy directed at Bush was immature and unfounded. You can argue that all three of the above were bad policies, but Bush was never a dictator, nor aspired to be one.
By the same token, rather than logically criticizing Obama, the right has taken the low road and used CTOGD. It’s ridiculous that this needs to be said, but here it goes: Obama is not a dictator. We have no reason to believe dictatorial ambitions. First, he probably would have attempted some Hugo Chavez-like things already, considering it’s about three years since his election. Second, government spending is not synonymous with dictatorship. Western European countries have a degree of public spending that conservatives would call “big government,” and yet in Europe the only government that could be considered autocratic is Belarus. State involvement and democracy can, and do, coexist. Third, if Obama was a dictator, he wouldn’t have let the Republicans block his bills. More bluntly, if he was an authoritarian, there wouldn’t even be a Republican Party.
Which brings us to the most important point: No mainstream political figures in the U.S. today are trying to create a dictatorship. I might have no great love for the Republican party, but I will at least admit they believe in democracy. Even if I disagree with them on the budget, immigration, taxes, foreign policy, church and state, and a slew of other issues, I can still function with them in a democratic context. If that agreement holds, and it has under Obama, there can be no American autocracy.
Totalitarian comparisons are unkind and unfounded. Not only do they cheapen national politics, but there is also the possibility that a portion of the country might actually believe Obama is a dictator. To people like that, rationally arguing with the opposition seems less appropriate than insurrection and violence.
Adam Levin is a contributor to the Voice and can be reached for comment at ALevin14@wooster.edu