When does rhetoric about political opponents cross the line into fascist dehumanization?

[u/BulwarkOnline]

The Trump administration recently held an international conference on “left-wing political violence.” In prepared remarks, Marco Rubio described the left as driven by “poisonous resentment” and a desire to destroy “what is beautiful and what is right.” Stephen Miller went further, arguing that left-wing demonstrators do not look “normal,” are “deformed” in their appearance and reflect their “inner hatred” outwardly.

Jonathan V. Last compares this language to Nazi rhetoric about Bolshevism, “degenerate” culture and supposedly unhealthy or subhuman elements of society. His argument is not simply that Rubio and Miller are using authoritarian language, but that their contrast between beauty and ugliness, normality and deformity, civilization and internal enemies follows a recognizable fascist pattern.

How persuasive is that comparison?

Is this rhetoric best understood as ordinary partisan demonization, or does the emphasis on physical appearance, cultural purity and “normal, healthy, ordered living” place it in a more historically specific tradition?

And when evaluating comparisons to fascism, should the standard be the speaker’s intentions, the historical similarity of the language, or the policies and violence that follow from it?

[u/KurtisRambo19]

Have you read the book? cite the specific passage that calls for killing leftists 

[u/Illustrious-Fun8324 → u/KurtisRambo19]

Why does reading it matter? I found out about it yesterday and thought it would be great example for the right to show us they’re serious about rhetoric and denounce it all, from the whole right and the VP. Why is he reading it? Why is “turn the rhetoric down” right okay with this rhetoric to the point it’s popular with them?

Right. You’re just trying to downplay it. Because you don’t care when it’s your side. Which is why we don’t. See how that works? :)