Dear Kamala Harris, Getting Your Criticism Right Matters
- john raymond
- Sep 26, 2025
- 3 min read
When you raise the alarm about threats to democracy — as you should — your choice of words is not merely stylistic. It is the battleground itself. Calling President Trump a “communist dictator” is a strategic error: it weakens your moral authority, invites simple dismissals, and undermines the very warnings you intend to deliver.
1. The stakes of rhetorical accuracy
In politics, language is not ornamental. It frames the contours of debate, determines both the burden of proof and the scope of counterattack. If your adversary can point to a misstep in definition, he need only say, “She doesn’t even know what she’s talking about,” and the rest of the critique loses its force. Sloppy comparisons allow your opponents to reduce your warnings to theatrical teases, not urgent diagnoses.
Further: when accusing someone of being anti-democratic, you are making a claim about their intention, strategy, and threat profile. You cannot afford to blur regimes. “Communist dictator” conjures Soviet, Maoist, or Castro-style regimes, whose ideological means and ends differ fundamentally from Trumpian methods of kleptocracy, clientelism, autocratic populism, and corporate capture.
Mislabeling signals you either don’t understand the threat — or you’re using scare language for effect. Either perception is self-undermining.
2. Why “dictatorship” or “autocrat with fascist tendencies” would have been better
More precise labels, such as “authoritarian,” “autocratic,” “strongman,” or “fascistic leaner,” are sharper tools in this case. Here’s why:
Historical analogy fits more closely: Trump displays a blend of oligarchic and ethno-populist traits (e.g. undermining the press, attacking independent courts, appealing to grievance, prioritizing loyalty over institutions). The traditional “communist dictator” model does not capture that mix.
Better alignment with strategy: If you believe Trump will erode democratic norms, you must point to structural symptoms (e.g. use of emergency powers, politicization of prosecutors, dominance of propaganda media). That is intelligible to your audience; invoking communism may alienate or confuse portions of your base.
Resilience against counterattack: If the charge is “authoritarian” or “strongman,” defenders can attempt to refute specific incidents or patterns. But if the label is openly misaligned, they’ll deny the label entirely, and the public may shrug — “She overreaches again.”
3. The blowback from imprecision
When critics hear “communist dictator” applied to Trump, several things happen:
It gives them an easy out: They can say, “See? She’s hysterical,” and treat one verbal excess as evidence of strategic unreliability.
It opens strawman defenses: Trump’s supporters can respond, “He’s not a communist — so this is absurd,” and avoid having to confront the authoritarian behaviors you meant to expose.
It dilutes your brand of seriousness: For observers who care about concepts — journalists, analysts, persuadable voters — a flawed analogy undermines your credibility. They expect precision from high office.
In effect, your rhetorical misstep cancels out your intended gain. The energy behind your criticism is lost in the counterattack, instead of being directed to your real concern: the democratic erosion you see.
4. How to recalibrate going forward
Name the regime type that matches: If your concern is an executive capture of institutions, weaponized prosecutions, media degradation, and cult of personality, then “authoritarian strongman” is the right frame.
Supply mechanism, not just label: Don’t rest on the label. Show how the regime works: “He seeks to dismantle independent oversight, fire prosecutors, smear courts, concentrate power in himself, coerce corporations, and stifle dissent.”
Use tempered rhetorical escalation: You can still warn of dangers. But avoid leaping to wrong labels.
Preempt the critique: Acknowledge complexity. Say: “I could call him a strongman or even, in extreme behavior, a would-be autocrat. But here’s the spectrum, and here’s where he lies.” That anticipates objections about exaggeration.
Being Right Matters
You have the moral basis, the historical mandate, and the audience expectation to speak fiercely against threats to democracy. But fierce argument does not exempt you from intellectual discipline. When you err in your critical precision — when you misname the enemy — your warning loses grounding.
If future critics can simply contest your definitions instead of reckoning with your substantive claims, your message becomes disposable.
Rhetoric must reflect your insight, not overshadow it.
Comments