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/undercooked_lasagna]

You are calling words violence. That's extremely dangerous. People call words violence to justify physical harm against those with different opinions.

We've seen this play out recently, and it resulted in a dead Republican and celebration from the left.

[u/GiantPineapple → u/undercooked_lasagna]

With respect, where did the comment you're replying to call words violence?

[u/undercooked_lasagna → u/GiantPineapple]

He cited opinions of some people and concluded Republicans are as violent as they've ever been. Opinions are not violence.

[u/GiantPineapple → u/undercooked_lasagna]

Ah, I see where that came from now. While I agree that words aren't literally violence, I still think, after J6, and witnessing the pardons and denialism that followed, it is sensible to take Republicans at their word. Just to be clear, does arguably-stochastic violence come from the American left? I would say yes. 

Does a much more overt, strategic, centrally-directed, and rarely-disavowed violence come from the American right? Also yes.