Scapegoating is an old ruse of authoritarian leaders to get their followers to support action against the minority scapegoated, or even commit crimes themselves against the scapegoated.
The Nazi's used the burning of the Reichstag (the German equivalent of the Capitol), which they blamed on a Communist, to convince the German President to issue an emergency decree that abolished freedom of speech, assembly, privacy, and the press; legalized phone tapping and interception of correspondence. Thousands of Communists were arrested, and Adolf Hitler—then the German Chancellor (Prime Minister)—used the decree to consolidate his power and crush his enemies.
Fast forward to the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination. Although the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, is alleged to have acted alone and is not alleged to have been a member of any political party or group, and with no information about his politics or motive, other than some social media memes that included an anti-fascist statement and his being against hatred, President Trump, Vice President Vance and other members of the administration and MAGA universe have portrayed the crime as being the product of the "radical political left."
And they seek to use this opportunity to crush the left. I quote Vance, "We are going to go after the NGO network that foments and facilitates and engages in violence."
Trump's modus operandi is to demonize his opponents, thus gaining the support of his base against them, and then attacking them in any way possible. He has declared emergencies to give him the power to act under existing law to carry out his designs. Whether it was, for example, deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, imposing tariffs, or deploying troops to the border, Trump has relied on statutory authority that was meant to be used only in extraordinary emergencies such as war or an invasion. An AP analysis showed that 30 of 150 Trump executive orders cited emergency power or authority.
Another aspect of his modus operandi is that he claims the problem of violence is coming from the left. Still, studies have shown that the far-right has been guilty of more acts of violence, including acts against Jews—for example, the Tree of Life Synagogue shootings—and Democrats—the assassination of Rep. Hortman, than have those on the left. One of these studies, conducted by a libertarian organization, was even featured on the DOJ website, but it has since been deleted.
Regarding acts of violence by the far-right, the perpetrators have, in general, been portrayed by Trump as individuals having a good excuse. But when violence comes from the left, it is always a function of and reflection on the movement, not the act of an individual.
This would be laughable were it not for the power that Trump has amassed and the absolute fealty and subservience that he is shown. Congress has become a tool of Trump's, and the loyalty of his base is unwavering. He could quite possibly do what he is seeking to do.
This is yet one more example of the Hitler-Trump analogy that I have written about previously in my blog. It's like his playbook—total control of all elements of government—was taken from Hitler. No one stopped Hitler. The question is, who will stop Trump? I honestly don't know. The levers of power are all in the hands of Republicans, and the judicial system, to date, with an acquiescent Supreme Court, has not been a brake on Trump's actions.
Trump represents a bare majority of American voters. Yet, he has managed to place himself above all the checks and balances that have enabled our democracy to survive these 250 years. And it is, unfortunately, the "consent of the governed"—at least those that elected him—that has enabled him to wreak havoc on our democracy and assume what I would call quasi-dictatorial power.
I have faith in our system and in the American people, and so I feel that somehow, at some point, this scourge that has overtaken our country will be removed, and we will return to the reasoned, if somewhat flawed, democracy that we have enjoyed for 250 years.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.