Finding the Right Language for Minneapolis

By Simon Erskine Locke

As communicators we know the power of language. Words matter. The choices we
make, whether for a press release or an article, frame understanding.
​
The limits of the power of words to override what we have seen in Minneapolis over the
last few weeks was all too apparent when the Kristi Noem and Gregory Bovino made a
boldfaced attempt to describe Alex Pretti and Renée Good as domestic terrorists to
justify the killings of these American citizens.

Despite efforts to convince our “lying eyes” that Pretti and Good were the bad guys and
ICE officers were the victims, and the initial fever-dream response of MAGA die-hards,
most on the right and left held the line, choosing to believe what they saw and
disbelieve evident lies.

For a brief moment, those on the left were united with right-to-carry advocates and
Republican legislators willing to call out the Administration. The push back was strong
enough to lead to a temporary retreat.

Most of us have likely been struggling to find the right language for Minneapolis. Two
terms have been used more than most by the left to describe the actions of the
government – authoritarian and fascist.

In an article for my Substack “The Spin,” I recently wrote that both terms have been
stripped of their power and reduced to partisan insults that only seem to trigger
democrats and progressives.

The idea of a strongman leader is embraced by many in the current take-no-prisoners
approach to achieving ideological goals. Far-right ideologies once verboten, underpin
policies of governments and opposition parties at home and abroad. With this as
context it should perhaps be no surprise that President Trump is comfortable enough to
play with the insults of dictator and fascist hurled against him.
Minneapolis does underscore the resonance of the risk to citizens of a government that
seeks to dominate and exercise control over individuals.

Merriam-Webster defines totalitarianism as “centralized control by an autocratic
authority and the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an
absolute state authority.” The individual is subordinated to the State with strict control
over all aspects of life and productive capacity.

We are not there yet. But I am confident that most Republicans would join their
Democrat compatriots in the recognition that there is reason for concern.

Although authoritarianism also diminishes the individual, because totalitarianism
encompasses both communism and fascism, it’s not as easy to dismiss as an insult
from the left. The language is not about an autocrat, or the right versus the left, it gets
us to the heart of the issue of the exercise of power by the State over individuals.
Individual rights are something that are profoundly important. They are as fundamental
as motherhood and apple pie, and a reason to check the power of any administration
and to come together in common cause.

Totalitarianism is language that encapsulates the threat to the individual of a ratcheting
up of the path we are on.

Simon Erskine Locke is a CommPRO columnist, entrepreneur, and member of the
Board of the Foreign Press Association.