
Before anything else, I should point out that my research over the past decade or so has focused primarily on the language and narratives of far-right populist movements. That covers a lot of territory, but I generally have not looked closely at, for instance, the language of authoritarian states specifically. The reason is not because there is always a clear line between the two, but because there are only so many hours in the day, and sometimes you just have to set limits.
There clearly is a lot of overlap between the two, and the current Trump administration and its Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement make that abundantly clear. Trump’s persona going back at least to the 1980s has been that of a man who wants to do nothing more than project a cartoonish image of wealth and splendor. One of his superpowers is that he has been able to maintain that image at the same time that he has built up his current self-projection as an enemy of elites. Now he is both extremely wealthy and literally the president of the United States. The populist rhetoric continues, and the absurdity just accumulates.
The upshot is that, even when a populist movement takes state power, it doesn’t have to stop attacking purported “elites,” although it may have to find new people to fill that role in the eyes of the faithful. As I said, state language is not really my field of expertise, but I believe that looking at the emerging official verbiage of the US government in terms of reactionary populist language may be useful here, even if I do not have a wide range of references to state actors to draw on.
Continue reading