Fascist, Nazi, and similar labels are used to demonize conservatives without ever calling for violence. Yet they still create a permission structure for real danger.
In an era of heightened political tension, we need to acknowledge the dangerous national trend: the weaponization of inflammatory rhetoric that statistically increases the risk of violence. This is not traditional incitement, which requires a direct call to immediate lawless action. Instead, it is stochastic terrorism or the repeated use of hostile, dehumanizing, or vilifying public language that raises the probability of ideologically motivated attacks by lone actors. The speaker maintains plausible deniability, yet the targets become framed as existential threats.
The pattern is unmistakable where Democratic leaders and their allies routinely brand opponents as “fascists,” “neo-Nazis,” or “authoritarians.” This rhetoric does not stay confined to cable news or campaign mailers. It floods social media replies, normalizes harassment, and creates a permission structure for real-world action.
Asymmetry
Conservatives frequently criticize left-wing policies as “Marxist” or “communist.” Often, this label is hyperbolic, like much of political rhetoric. However, many Democrats and progressives openly embrace socialist or Marxist-inspired ideas, from wealth redistribution to critical theory frameworks. The Democrat front-runner for Governor is an unabashed socialist who doesn’t run from the labels. There are hundreds of local chapters for the Democratic Socialists of America and other communist offshoot organizations.
Historical communism’s staggering death toll makes claiming the title serious. Yet, it rarely translates into random violence against everyday Democrats. No major Republican figure calls for gulags or class-based purges in modern America.
The left often points to the horrific assassination of Minnesota Democrat lawmaker Melissa Hortman as evidence of “right-wing” violence, but fails to mention the clearly schizophrenic ramblings of the assassin who said that Tim Walz wanted him to personally murder Amy Klobuchar so that Tim could become a US Senator. Does any serious person believe this to be an atrocity motivated by conservative ideology? No.
Contrast this with the left’s reflexive deployment of “Nazi,” “fascist,” or “neo-Nazi.” Unfortunately, they are applied so broadly to traditional conservatism that they lose all historical meaning.
Giovanni Gentile
Do Democrats even fully understand what they are saying when they call someone a fascist? I doubt it. It’s merely a political weapon instead of a political ideology. To understand the ideology, let’s return to the source.
Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher who co-authored The Doctrine of Fascism with Benito Mussolini, defined fascism as a totalitarian ethical state: “everything within the state, nothing outside or against it.”
In sharp contrast, the modern left deploys the term far more loosely. Today’s Democrats typically define fascism as little more than any exercise of authority above baseline progressive values.
“The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist… Fascism is totalitarian… the Fascist State… a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”
Gentile went further, stressing fascism’s anti-individualist core:
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State.”
Modern conservative principles of small government, individual rights, free markets, and traditional families are the philosophical opposite of Gentile’s vision. Yet, the left shoehorns any authority they dislike into “fascism.” Their baseline for “normal” is so far left that basic traditional values register as authoritarian extremism.
Virtually no prominent conservatives or Republicans in Wisconsin (or nationally) openly embrace historical fascism or Gentile’s doctrine. Fringe oddballs are disavowed instantly. Meanwhile, there is a not insignificant portion of the Democrat base who proudly claim Marxist or socialist ideology as their own..
Kirk Bangstad: Easy to Throw Under the Bus
Take Kirk Bangstad, owner of Minocqua Brewing Company and a PAC operator in Wisconsin. It is easy for Wisconsin Democrats to distance themselves from his brash, over-the-top comments about Trump’s assassination attempts or offering “free beer the day he dies.” When the rhetoric becomes too radioactive, Bangstad becomes the convenient “throw under the bus” example.
What we forget is that thousands of people routinely support, comment on, like, and amplify what Bangstad says or implicitly endorse it as normal political speech. His unhinged posts rack up massive engagement from everyday Democrats who treat his extremism as righteous truth-telling rather than schizo-level ranting. Schizo-level extremism on the left gets a quiet pass or soft applause; even if big-time Democrats throw him under the bus for political expediency.
However, some Wisconsin Democrats like Kelda Roys, Francesca Hong, and Chris Larson have invoked “Fascist Trump Regime,” called Republicans “MAGA fascism,” equate conservative positions with “America’s Nazis,” or thrown around labels like “hallmarks of fascism.” They rarely need facts. Vague appeals to “authoritarianism” suffice to keep their base agitated and activated.
Lessons from the DC Shooter
The permission structure can become lethal when rhetoric crosses into outright dehumanization by stripping opponents of basic humanity, labeling them pedophiles, rapists, child abusers, or complicit monsters. An ordinary disagreement can become a moral complicity in evil where violence becomes a righteous duty.
The White House correspondents’ dinner shooting attempt provides a textbook case. Gunman Cole Allen’s manifesto explicitly called Trump a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor” and justified targeting administration officials and attendees as complicit enablers. The same dehumanizing tropes the gunman used to rationalize attempted murder appears in reply threads daily. Where is the Republican equivalent? There is none. There are no Republican shooters radicalized by the out-of-control national debt and feels the need to target politicians who are complicit with it. There is simply no equivocation to be made.
The stochastic effect is real and statistically, some unstable individuals will act. The left’s own language provides the moral cover, even if they don’t fully understand it. This rhetoric has been so ingrained in our political discourse that many are desensitized by it. This complacency is dangerous and we should treat this as the serious charge that it is.
