cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/28249577
Top Trump official Stephen Miller’s recent declaration that anyone who “preaches hate for America” will face deportation has ignited alarm online, with critics warning the statement disregards First Amendment protections.
…
Social media users and legal analysts raised immediate concerns, pointing out that expressing dissent or criticism of the government is protected under the First Amendment. Some worried the administration was veering into authoritarian territory.
…
The backlash has reignited broader debates over the limits of free speech, especially as civil liberties fall under scrutiny. While immigration enforcement remains a core theme of President Donald Trump’s platform, critics are increasingly questioning whether rhetoric like Miller’s is a precursor to more aggressive suppression of dissent.
I don’t think they care about their hypocrisy, tbh - I think they view themselves as more American while dismantling America. This is just how reactionary coups work, they appeal to nationalism, but insist on reverting to an older status quo as a more authentic version of that nationalism. (It’s a re-invisioning of America in a sense.)
They’re dressing for the America they want.
yes, and in some sense it doesn’t really matter if even the founding of America conflicts with their America - they believe their America is more American. This is the reactionary mindset, that the past is best while not even having the education to know what the past was. Instead the ideals are set as an agenda by whatever the reactionary institutions say the past is, and in political movements those ideals and details often change as needed for political gains. Unfortunately this is not just exclusive to reactionaries (the Russian revolution brought about Stalin after all and the French revolution led to Napoleon), but I do tend to think reactionary minds are more quick to accept reality based on authority rather than reason or evidence, and that makes them more politically convenient as followers.
All the more reason to view the reactionaries as not really invested in any particular past or tradition, but instead as being influenced by certain groups and people - those most visible and influential often being more like grifters than theologians.