Parallels in Propaganda: Dehumanization and Scapegoating in Nazi Germany and Modern U.S. Political Rhetoric under the MAGA Movement
This analysis explores how historical propaganda techniques mirror modern political rhetoric, highlighting the dangers of scapegoating marginalized groups.
Parallels in Propaganda: Dehumanization and Scapegoating in Nazi Germany and Modern U.S. Political Rhetoric under the MAGA Movement
Veronica Eichberg
INS 4100: Honors Human Rights Violations and Genocide
Dr. Whitney T. Bendeck
12/02/2024
Parallels between Nazi Germany’s dehumanization of marginalized groups and the MAGA movement’s immigration rhetoric reveal a disturbing continuity in the use of propaganda to consolidate power. Both Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump leveraged economic hardships and societal fears to scapegoat vulnerable populations, fostering division and normalizing discrimination. Nazi Germany's propaganda strategies to dehumanize Jews and scapegoat them for problems in society parallel the MAGA movement's use of immigration rhetoric to vilify marginalized groups, revealing a troubling pattern of leveraging economic hardship and societal fears to consolidate power and justify discrimination.
I. Historical Analysis: Dehumanization in Nazi Germany
A. Propaganda and Public Manipulation
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Party’s Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, orchestrated one of the most effective propaganda campaigns in history, shaping public opinion to align with Adolf Hitler’s ideology and laying the groundwork for the dehumanization of Jews. Goebbels utilized modern media such as film, radio, and print to spread harmful antisemitic messages and foster a cult-like following around Adolf Hitler. To comprehend how the Nazi party was able to build such a loyal following, one must first understand the various techniques that were strategically used to portray Jews as threats and subhuman.
One of the most effective techniques of Goebbels and the Nazi party was the use of visual media and symbolism. Propaganda films such as The Eternal Jew portrayed Jews as vermin spreading disease, imagery intended to induce fear and justify harsh actions against Jewish communities. In addition, posters and leaflets used bold, attention-grabbing slogans and stark imagery in red and black ink, which emphasized the idea that the Jews were responsible for Germany’s current economic struggles. Joseph Goebbels' propaganda efforts fostered a social environment in which antisemitism became normalized, paving the way for policies such as the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. These laws stripped Jews of their citizenship and legal protections, making them 'easy targets for more extreme forms of Nazi attacks' (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 19). By embedding antisemitism into every aspect of German society, from media to education, Goebbels desensitized the public to Jewish suffering, setting the framework for systemic exclusion.
B. Policies of Exclusion
Joseph Goebbels' propaganda tactics were essential in normalizing antisemitism and desensitizing the general population to systemic prejudice and discrimination. These efforts both preceded and accompanied the introduction of laws such as the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, laying the groundwork for the gradual erosion of Jewish rights. To better understand this deception, one must examine the discontent and desperation of the German people during this period (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024).
By 1933, the majority of German citizens felt burdened by the crippling economic conditions caused by war reparations from the Treaty of Versailles and the global fallout of the Great Depression. This created a widespread sentiment of hopelessness and distrust in the democratic Weimar Republic. “Between the two terrible wars, the Great Depression had brought about extreme social misery and high unemployment, itself a stimulant to fascism and Nazism. Democracies collapsed” (Holmes, 2022, p. 4). Hitler exploited these hardships, offering a message of restoration and national pride while redirecting public frustration toward scapegoats such as Jews and communists. 'Jews were condemned as the embodiment of capitalism and all its defects... epitomizing everything that was foreign and not German' (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 17)
After a failed coup attempt, the Nazi Party strategically shifted toward gaining power in the German government legally. In 1928, the Nazis held only 12 legislative seats; by 1932, they had won 230, making them the largest party in the Reichstag. This enormous increase in support was driven by the Great Depression's economic devastation, which affected Germany especially hard due to its reliance on foreign loans and reparations payments. Rather than emphasizing his radical ideology or overt antisemitism, Hitler focused his rhetoric on condemning the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic and vowing to restore Germany's economy and international status. Through these manipulative tactics, the Nazi Party gained power through legal means, setting the stage for the authoritarian regime that would follow.
The political instability of the Weimar era also worked in Hitler’s favor. Between 1919 and 1933, Germany cycled through 16 different chancellors in just 14 years, fostering a perception of the role as temporary. This instability made even those who recognized Hitler's extremist views feel more comfortable with his appointment, as they believed his tenure would be brief and that he could be reeled in if necessary. (Holmes, 2022). Moreover, Hitler's ability to connect with the average German citizen, particularly his emphasis on economic grievances and promises of national restoration, made him an influential figure among a populace dissatisfied with political leadership in Germany during this time. Thus, his remarkable public speaking skills and ability to empathize with popular frustrations persuaded many that his selection as chancellor was worth the risk of his extremist ideals.
C. Implementation of Discriminatory Laws and Politics
Once in power, Hitler used existing legal processes to solidify his rule and undermine democracy. One important tool was Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which had been in existence since 1930 to combat fears of a communist uprising."Article 48 provided Hitler with the legal means to enact anti-Semitic policies under the guise of national security" (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 8). Essentially, this provision gave the chancellor the power to rule by decree in emergencies, meaning Hitler could act outside of the constitution as he deemed it necessary. Since Article 48 was already in effect when Hitler became chancellor, he justified discriminatory policies against Jews and minorities as necessary for national security, allowing him to expand his power and bypass constitutional law.
Starting in 1933, the Nazis targeted Jewish livelihoods through business boycotts, professional exclusion, and asset seizures, which deepened their isolation from society and reinforced anti-Jewish stereotypes. "Much of the Nazi vitriol was directed at the Jews who, based on Nazi racial theories, were progressively driven out of public service occupations, the universities, and the professions" (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 19). Not content with excluding Jews from public life, the Nazis enacted laws to seize Jewish businesses or force their sale under duress. "They were not attempts to eliminate Jews or to force them to flee to other countries. Instead, they were responses by governments to the periodic venting of local hostilities towards a vulnerable minority that had become a convenient scapegoat for economic problems" (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 19).
By March 1933, the Reichstag elections and the Enabling Act, which dissolved Germany's legislative system and gave Hitler unchecked power, thus abolishing constitutional constraints on the Nazi Party. “Effectively, a state of exception was created with anti-Semitic legislation and policies commencing with the passing of the Enabling Act in 1933” (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 8). This "state of exception" facilitated anti-Semitic policies and repressed political opposition through harassment, imprisonment, and violence (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, pp. 8, 19). Following Hindenburg's death in 1934, Hitler gained complete control as Führer and Commander-in-Chief, ending the Weimar Republic and achieving a legal revolution.
In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship and denied them the privileges and benefits that all German citizens had previously enjoyed. Stripped of legal rights under the Nuremberg Laws, Jews became 'easy targets for more extreme forms of Nazi attacks,' no longer protected by the state (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 19). This deliberate legal exclusion normalized the dehumanization of Jews, allowing society to tolerate progressively harsh actions against them. “By removing from an individual their political rights, that is, their right to be recognized as a citizen of a State... they are no longer entitled to the legal protections and rights which citizenship, their political life, provides." (Funnell, Bigoni, & Twyford, 2024, p. 7). This calculated deterioration of rights and normalization of discrimination illustrates the devastation and severity that legally sanctioned discrimination can cause.
II. Modern Parallels: The MAGA Movement and Immigration Rhetoric
Manipulation of the status quo
The dehumanization strategies used by both the Nazi party and the MAGA movement highlight a common pattern of exploitation in which leaders exploit economic and societal fears to shift blame onto marginalized groups. The Nazi regime's dehumanization rhetoric paved the way for systematic discrimination and violence, demonstrating how targeting marginalized groups through propaganda can serve as an effective tool for consolidating power and justifying oppressive policies. The MAGA campaign has adopted similar scapegoating rhetoric against immigrants, frequently calling them 'criminals,' 'rapists,' and 'vermin.' This phrase not only distorts public perception but also exaggerates the relationship between immigration and crime, leading to policies that marginalize immigrant populations. "Trump’s characterization of immigrants as 'criminals' and 'vermin' mirrors the dehumanizing language historically used to marginalize vulnerable groups" (Green, 2016, p. 506). During his 2016 presidential campaign announcement, Donald Trump stated, “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people” (Green, 2016, p. 506). This quotation, having originated from a presidential campaign announcement, emphasizes its significance as a cornerstone of his campaign strategy and intentional use of scapegoating to perpetuate negative stereotypes of immigrants.
Official data contradicts this rhetoric. "Undocumented immigrants are arrested at substantially lower rates than native-born U.S. citizens for a variety of offenses, with less than 1% committing violent crimes" (National Institute of Justice, 2024). Despite these contradictions, the MAGA movement exaggerates crime statistics and economic impacts to evoke fear and garner public acceptance of harsher immigration measures, such as family separations and travel bans, by portraying these policies as necessary for national security and social stability. Trump's nationalistic security narratives intensified fears by depicting immigration almost exclusively as a source of violent crime, terrorism, and existential threats. These narratives, running "directly counter to official statistics and government data ... and showed that Latin American migrants, for example, were overall less likely than US citizens to commit violent crimes" (Löfflmann, 2024, p. 25). By simultaneously perpetuating and exploiting these fears, Donald Trump justifies discriminatory measures to his MAGA base and consolidates political power through the use of fear to manipulate public perception.
B. Fear-Based Narratives and Policy Justification
Trump’s linkage of security narratives and simplistic anti-immigration policies such as "Build the Wall" and the "Muslim ban" enforced a subjective perception of insecurity and vulnerability among his voters, who were markedly more likely than other groups to prioritize threats posed by criminals, terrorists, and illegal immigrants (Bump, 2021, as cited in Löfflmann, 2024, p. 57). The normalization of fear-based narratives further polarizes society, fostering public acceptance of harsh measures like family separations under the guise of national stability. "By framing immigrants as existential threats, the MAGA movement effectively justified stringent immigration policies that deepened societal divisions" (Löfflmann, 2024, p. 57). This rhetoric transforms immigrant communities into symbols of societal ruin, creating an environment of mistrust and legitimizing increasingly punitive actions against them. "Trump’s visceral stories of immigrant enmity were not just campaign rhetoric but a calculated strategy to deepen societal divides and consolidate political identity through exclusion" (Löfflmann, p. 57).
By intentionally dehumanizing immigrants with terms like "criminals," "rapists," and "vermin," and framing them as threats, the MAGA movement strategically uses these words to evoke fear and garner public acceptance of harsher immigration measures, such as family separations and travel bans, by portraying these policies as necessary for national security and social stability. Simultaneously, this rhetoric also consolidates political support by presenting immigrants as a scapegoat for broader societal issues.
III. Comparative Analysis: Drawing Parallels Between Nazi Germany and the MAGA Movement
A. Exploitation of Economic Hardships to Shift Blame onto Marginalized Groups
The dehumanization tactics employed by Nazi Germany and the strategies utilized by the MAGA movement in the United States reveal a strategic pattern of exploiting economic hardships and societal fears to target marginalized groups. "Hitler capitalized on the economic devastation of the Great Depression to redirect public frustration toward marginalized groups, a tactic similarly employed by the MAGA movement in today's economic climate" (Holmes, 2022, p.4). By directly examining the techniques outlined earlier in both contexts, clear parallels can be drawn that highlight how leaders manipulate public perception to consolidate power, justify discriminatory policies, and normalize hate.
B. Use of Propaganda and Dehumanizing Rhetoric to Normalize Discrimination
As discussed in Section I, Adolf Hitler leveraged the economic downturn caused by the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression to promote a message of restoration and German nationalism. Germans experienced high unemployment, hyperinflation, and a loss of national pride. Hitler vowed to revive the economy and restore Germany's prestige on the global stage. By channeling public frustration onto scapegoats, mainly Jews, and communists, Hitler provided a tangible enemy to blame for the country's problems. Jews were condemned as "the embodiment of capitalism and all its defects... epitomizing everything that was foreign and not German" (Funnell, Bigoni, and Twyford, 2024, p. 17). This strategic redirection brought the public together against a common adversary and in support of a leader who promised to rid the nation of such.
Similarly, the MAGA movement emerged when many Americans felt economically disadvantaged due to globalization, job outsourcing, and technological changes. The slogan "Make America Great Again" invoked nostalgia for a perceived better past and appealed to individuals experiencing economic and societal anxiety. "Just as the Nazis controlled cultural output to propagate their ideology, the MAGA movement seeks to influence educational narratives to align with its political objectives" (Bartrop & Grimm, 2019, pp. 107-108). By advocating for national restoration, the movement tapped into feelings of dissatisfaction and directed public frustration toward immigrants and other vulnerable populations. Donald Trump's rhetoric during his campaign underscores this tactic: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists” (Green, 2016, p. 506). By framing immigrants and global trade as threats to American prosperity, the movement shifted attention away from complex economic issues toward vilifying minority groups.
In both cases, political leaders exploited economic hardship to mobilize the general population against marginalized groups, framing them as the source of societal problems. This diversion not only relieved leaders from addressing underlying economic challenges but also fostered a sense of unity and shared hostility among supporters. As Löfflmann (2024) observes, “Trump’s claims were framed through the lens of populist blame attribution... regarding border security, violent crime, terrorism, job losses, and national decline” (p. 57-58). This approach mirrors Hitler's strategy of uniting Germans against perceived internal enemies to consolidate his political power.
C. Recurring Themes in Propaganda and Rhetoric
Another significant aspect of Goebbels' propaganda infrastructure was his control over art, literature, and cultural life. In 1933, he oversaw the burning of over 20,000 books written by Jewish and anti-Nazi authors, illustrating the regime's rejection of intellectual diversity. Goebbels' ministry soon seized control of all forms of cultural creation in Germany, forcing Jewish artists and authors into exile and subjecting newspapers, novels, plays, and films to strict Nazi supervision. "By controlling art, literature, and other forms of German culture, he could bring about the spiritual mobilization of the German people" (Bartrop & Grimm, 2024, pp. 107-108).
In recent years, Republican politicians affiliated with the MAGA movement in the United States have increasingly pushed to influence educational curricula and library resources, leading efforts to ban certain books and restrict discussions on particular topics. These actions parallel historical instances where controlling information and narratives played a critical role in shaping public perception and ideology. These banned book lists frequently go beyond LGBTQ+ topics to target works that address systemic racism and historical injustices. Books such as Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" and Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi's "Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You" have consequently faced removal due to their exploration of racial themes.
Furthermore, Texas House Bill 3979 was enacted in June 2021 and places restrictions on how topics related to race and racism are taught in schools. The bill states: "A teacher may not be compelled to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs" (Texas H.B. No. 3979, 87th Legislature, 2021). Furthermore, the bill prohibits teaching that “‘an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex,' effectively limiting critical discussions on systemic racism” (Texas H.B. No. 3979, 87th Legislature, 2021). This legislation reflects attempts to control educational narratives and stifle discussions about systematic racism, echoing previous efforts to govern cultural and intellectual life through censorship.
These modern initiatives, which restrict access to books and speech on key social concerns, resemble the Nazi regime's suppression of intellectual choice and attempts to maintain the support of the next generations. While these actions differ in scale and context from the Nazi regime's censorship, they highlight ongoing tensions over cultural narratives and the control of information. The removal of such publications from educational environments not only restricts students' access to critical discussions about systemic concerns, but it also contradicts the principles of free inquiry and open dialogue. This development in education-driven legislation underscores the importance of maintaining intellectual freedom and ensuring historical integrity is not sacrificed.
The examination of propaganda and scapegoating strategies used by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party and Donald Trump’s MAGA movement reveals important parallels in how leaders and political movements can use these tools to sway public opinion, bolster a hold on power, and target marginalized communities. By exploiting economic hardship and attributing societal issues to marginalized groups, both movements created a scapegoat that served to unify supporters and distract from systemic issues. This approach not only allowed for political succession but also directed public resources toward policies targeting these groups, reinforcing the narratives used to justify their marginalization. While differences in historical and political contexts must be acknowledged, the structural similarities in the strategic use of discriminatory rhetoric and exclusionary policies reveal how such tactics have persisted throughout history, demonstrating their effectiveness in shaping public perception and consolidating political power.
References
Bartrop, P. R., & Grimm, E. E. (2019). Perpetrating the Holocaust: leaders, enablers, and collaborators. Abc-Clio, An Imprint Of Abc-Clio, LLC.
Funnell, W., Bigoni, M., & Twyford, E. (2024). Accounting for the Holocaust. In Routledge eBooks. Informa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032685328
Green, D. (2016). The Trump Hypothesis: Testing Immigrant Populations as a Determinant of Violent and Drug-Related Crime in the United States*. Social Science Quarterly, 97(3), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12300
Holmes, M. (2022). From the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Maastricht. Taylor & Francis.
National Institute of Justice. (2024, September 12). Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-offending-rate-lower-us-born-citizen-rate
Valentino, N. A., Neuner, F. G., & Vandenbroek, L. M. (2018). The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric and the End of Racial Priming. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1086/694845