Chris Cillizza Inadvertently Gives a Clinic in how to Appease Fascists

His recent post is a how-to manual in rationalizing acquiescence to authoritarian propaganda

Chris Cillizza is really on a roll lately.

Despite being fired from legacy media, he’s become the face of what legacy media has become: a haven for both-sidesing our country to death, weak and oblivious to any and all threats to our country’s existence.

He would argue (and has) that he’s just calling balls and strikes, regardless of the uniform of the players. The problem with this approach is that if the players of one team decide to start wielding bats with iron spikes on them and wildly swinging them at the other team and the umpires, the legitimacy of the game has been threatened and should be restored.

But no. Chris just continues to call balls and strikes of the new game and hope the team with the iron-spiked bats don’t try to swing at him. In fact, he may be inclined to give them some of the closer calls to ensure his safety.

In other words, Chris is good at acquiescing in the face of extreme right-wing propaganda. Below is a recent Substack Note that Cillizza wrote that could be used as a clinic in how to rationalize this acquiescence. I’m not sure a better how-to guide could have been written. This Note should be in history books to show the power of propaganda and how the collective American mind worked to bring Trump into power and keep him there.

Below are some main concepts from this Note that can be used as a window into the acquiescent-minded of us.

“No one cares”

One thing you have to do as an appeaser is convince yourself that “no one cares” about the dictator overstepping his bounds. Then, why should anyone? Chris does this very effectively.

He states “no one cares” about the “intricacies” or “nuances” of Trump’s deportation policies, or the calling up of the National Guard.

One might say Chris’ job as a journalist is to offer these such intricacies and nuances to inform and educate people, instead of just blindly allowing them to believe it’s reasonable for the President to do such things. To be sure, there are legitimate nuances to this situation to choose from: the minimal size and scale of the protests, the effectiveness of the local law enforcement, the legal constraints of such bold actions from the executive branch.

But pointing these out would be perceived as taking a side, and that’s not something he’d ever want to do here. Remember, he’s committed to unbiased ball-and-strike calling, regardless of the weapons—er, sorry—”athletic gear” that one team decides to use.

So, the best option as Chris sees it is to just call is as he thinks it is, which is that everyone is too ignorant or uncurious to care. You just need to accept the ignorance and complete lack of curiosity and move on.

Pictures speak 1000 epithets

Cillizza notes something that’s true: images are powerful. When the country sees burning cars or freeways blocked or people throwing objects at officers, it stirs revulsion and anxiety. Most want it to stop, in whatever way is necessary.

But maybe, instead of throwing your hands up and blindingly giving in to this impulse, he could be a voice that calls out the gratuitous use of images to push a narrative that is not happening in reality.

One of the reasons Trump and his grievance machine have been so effective is because they are essentially image pimps. An image that is adverse to Democrats comes into existence (burning car, etc.), and then is used to make up whatever story happens to be on MAGA cultists’ minds.

One burning car does not mean one burning city. But it gets promoted and amplified that way.

Take, for example, the picture below.

If I was a right-wing podcaster, I might say the following: “Oh my God, [insert city with Democratic majority leadership here] is a fiery hellscape. We need to send in the marines to stamp down the riots and restore law and order”.

Since I’m not a right-wing podcaster, I’m going to say the truth, which is that this is an image of a burning car that a Louisville man drove into the Ohio River. (He lived, incidentally).

The point being that a burning car, or even two or three, doesn’t mean a whole city is being destroyed. And just noting—without any pushback or attempt to inform or educate—that people are accepting that false narrative pretty much makes you complicit with the authoritarians.

By the way, perhaps the marines should be sent to Florida to stop this type of horrible behavior:

I don’t have images, but thought it was pretty terrifying. Sounds like a hellscape to me.

“Work with President Trump”

Cillizza literally says that Democrats should state they will “work with President Trump” to stop the violence. This is basically a concession that things are so desperate that Democrats should not only appease Trump, but become active collaborators in Trump’s scheme to overreach with the military.

Most Democrats, including California Governor Gavin Newsome, have denounced the violence and pleaded to let local law enforcement handle the situation. They note that escalating the heavy-handed force with people in military uniforms would further inflame the passions of the protesters and increase the chances of violence.

So, no, Democrats should not “work with President Trump” to do this. They should do whatever it takes to quell the violence, which would include the opposite of what Trump is doing. Again, this concept should be shouted from the rooftops in an effort to educate and inform, not suppressed because images of burning cars might be making regular people fine with giving in to authoritarian rule.

There may be times that Democrats should work with Trump, but so far those opportunities haven’t been presented. The first five months of Trump as President has seen him constantly challenge the guardrails surrounding his lawful functions and push the envelope of what’s acceptable from an American President. There’s no obligation to work with him while he does these things.

The art of appeasement

By writing this Note, Cillizza shows that he thinks giving in and giving up in the face of bad optics is the best thing to do politically. But he’s wrong about who that favors.

If Democrats blindly give in to Trump when faced with such propaganda, they are appeasing and complicit in his lawlessness.

The effectiveness of MAGA propaganda doesn’t strengthen Cillizza’s argument. In fact, it works in the opposite way. More should be done to expose the naked propaganda.

Americans need to know that they are being played. Someone has to tell them and explain how it is happening.

Cillizza thinks that is not a worthy endeavor, apparently because the propaganda is too good.

Cillizza is wrong.