Headline: “Woman Who Shot Her Dog Will Head Us Homeland Security”
Kristi Noem faced widespread backlash in April this year when she wrote in a memoir that she shot to death an “untrainable” dog that she “hated” on her family farm.
The Rise of Public Sadism and Cruelty
Part of my recent study reveals a disturbing trend among Trump supporters: a shared tendency toward cruelty and sadism. If someone finds sadism amusing, it not only highlights a lack of empathy but may also point to underlying mental health issues. This behavior reflects a troubling mindset that demands attention and critical examination. The unchecked destruction of the environment, the erosion of governmental structures, and the growing normalization of cruelty paint a dire and unmistakable picture of our future.
History Repeats Itself
There are similar studies examining the rise of public sadism and cruelty in Nazi Germany, focusing on psychological, sociopolitical, and cultural factors. Scholars often explore how propaganda, dehumanization of marginalized groups, and the ideology of the regime created a culture where cruelty was normalized or even celebrated.
Key works include:
* Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men” – Examines how regular people participated in atrocities due to peer pressure, ideology, and situational factors.
* Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem” – Discusses the “banality of evil” and how ordinary individuals can commit acts of cruelty under systemic influence.
* Harald Welzer’s studies – Focus on group dynamics and the psychological processes enabling public sadism.
These works suggest that societal and institutional factors can deeply influence individual behavior, fostering environments where cruelty flourishes.
Trump’s Normalization of Hate and Cruelty
The rise in cruelty and the normalization of sadism among Trump supporters are evident in several unsettling examples. Kristi Noem’s appointment as Homeland Security Director follows her unapologetic boasting about killing an “untrainable” dog she despised, which received applause from supporters. Similarly, Stephen Miller’s reemergence as Deputy Chief of Staff highlights far-right cruelty, including his infamous role in family separations, anti-immigrant policies, and white nationalist rhetoric. Many Trump supporters are referring to the extensive list of controversial and empathy-lacking nominations and appointments as their ‘dream team.’
Parallels and Common Ideologies of the Far-Right
The parallels between far-right movements in the United States and Israel often revolve around shared ideologies regarding nationalism, militarism, and resistance to pluralism or inclusive political solutions, such as a two-state resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here are the connections:
1. Leaders and Roles
- Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel would likely reflect a U.S. foreign policy stance aligned with far-right priorities. Both figures are known for strong pro-Israel positions, frequently aligning with Israeli right-wing policies that resist concessions to Palestinians.
- Rubio has expressed unwavering support for Israeli military actions and has consistently opposed conditions placed on U.S. aid to Israel. Huckabee, a vocal evangelical Christian, has supported Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law, and has dismissed the feasibility of a two-state solution.
2. Obstruction to a Two-State Solution
- Both U.S. and Israeli far-right groups reject a two-state solution as a viable path to peace. They often promote the idea of complete Israeli sovereignty over contested territories, undermining efforts at diplomacy. This rejectionism aligns with policies that exacerbate the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories.
3. Dehumanizing Rhetoric
- Dehumanizing language, such as referring to Arabs as “animals” or “subhuman,” is a characteristic shared by extreme factions. Such language has been condemned internationally for fostering hatred and justifying violence. Leaders in both far-right movements have used rhetoric that frames Palestinians and Arabs as existential threats, often downplaying civilian casualties in military actions.
4. Deliberate Infliction of Pain
- Far-right movements in both countries have been criticized for policies that appear to prolong suffering, such as withholding critical resources. For example:
- Bombing Civilian Areas: Disregard for civilian casualties, including children, during military operations, has been a hallmark of critiques against Israeli far-right policies. Similar rhetoric in the U.S. far-right justifies collateral damage in conflicts by portraying it as necessary for national security.
- Withholding Pain Medication and Food Supplies: Policies restricting medical and humanitarian aid to Gaza, for instance, have drawn international condemnation, with critics likening them to collective punishment.
5. Pleasure in Suffering
- The far-right in both countries often appears to derive satisfaction from “owning” perceived adversaries, which aligns with the broader critique of cruelty as a political tool. Public comments, social media posts, and political statements sometimes celebrate the suffering of the “enemy,” reflecting an absence of empathy.
These actions and attitudes contribute to broader concerns about the erosion of democratic values, human rights, and possibilities for peaceful coexistence. While these parallels are not absolute and do not apply to all members of either movement, they highlight concerning trends in both countries.
Normalization of Hate and Cruelty: A Culture of Relishing Pain and Suffering
This shift in societal norms is mirrored in online behavior, where Trump supporters often express amusement or approval through emojis and comments, reinforcing the acceptability of these attitudes. Social media has amplified this trend, enabling the public normalization of sadistic and hateful behaviors across political and ideological divides.
The phrase “own the libs” has gained popularity in certain political and cultural contexts, often used to describe actions or statements aimed at provoking, humiliating, or frustrating perceived liberal or progressive individuals. Examining the phrase reveals two troubling implications:
- Pleasure in Cruelty:
- The expression reflects a willingness to act out of spite rather than genuine political or ideological discourse. It shifts the goal from engaging in meaningful debate to simply inflicting emotional or intellectual discomfort on others.
- This aligns with concepts like “schadenfreude,” the pleasure derived from another’s misfortune, and demonstrates an erosion of empathy in political and cultural exchanges. Instead of focusing on constructive policy or shared goals, the phrase celebrates antagonism for its own sake.
- Evocation of Slavery Imagery:
- The term “own” carries dark historical connotations tied to the enslavement of human beings, particularly in the United States. Historically, to “own” a person was to assert absolute control and dehumanize them, stripping away autonomy and dignity.
- While the phrase is not always used with an explicit reference to slavery, its invocation in the context of political dominance or humiliation can unintentionally (or in some cases, intentionally) echo the power dynamics and cruelty associated with slavery.
By celebrating domination and deriving satisfaction from others’ discomfort, “own the libs” perpetuates a culture of divisiveness and cruelty. Furthermore, the historical baggage of “ownership” as a concept cannot be entirely divorced from its use, especially in a country still grappling with the legacy of slavery. It’s a stark reminder of how language can carry unintended or overlooked implications that resonate deeply with historical injustices.
Here’s a detailed analysis of specific cases highlighting the acceptance and promotion of hate and cruelty among Trump supporters:
1. Family Separation Policy at the Border
- Policy Details: Under the Trump administration, the “Zero Tolerance” immigration policy led to the separation of thousands of children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border.
- Public Reaction: Many Trump supporters defended the policy as necessary for border security, with some even mocking the suffering of separated families. Social media posts from supporters often celebrated the policy as “tough love” for immigrants.
2. Mockery of Disabled Reporter
- Incident: During his 2016 campaign, Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski, a reporter with a physical disability.
- Supporter Response: Rather than condemning the act, many Trump supporters dismissed criticism as “overreaction” and cheered the event, framing it as an example of Trump being “unfiltered.”
3. Protests Against Social Justice Movements
- Examples: Counter-protests against Black Lives Matter demonstrations often included violent rhetoric and displays of aggression, such as driving vehicles into crowds or brandishing firearms.
- Public Behavior: Trump supporters frequently labeled protesters as “thugs” or “terrorists” and expressed glee over incidents where protesters were injured or arrested.
4. Targeting of LGBTQ+ Rights
- Policy Actions: The Trump administration rolled back protections for transgender people in areas such as military service and healthcare.
- Cultural Reinforcement: Trump supporters celebrated these moves as victories against “wokeness” and often used social media to ridicule or attack LGBTQ+ individuals.
5. Online Harassment Campaigns
- Patterns: Trump supporters frequently organize harassment campaigns targeting journalists, academics, and activists, especially women and minorities, often using threats of violence or dehumanizing language.
- Notable Examples: Victims like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have faced a barrage of racist and sexist attacks, with some threats amplified by Trump himself.
6. Support for Political Violence
- January 6 Capitol Attack: The storming of the Capitol in 2021 was a culmination of violent rhetoric normalized within Trump-supporting circles.
- Post-Event Celebration: Many supporters referred to the event as a “patriotic act,” dismissing the deaths and injuries caused.
These examples reflect a cultural normalization of cruelty, where acts of aggression or policies causing harm are not only justified but often celebrated within the Trump-supporting base.