“Anti-Communism” in the Trump 2.0 era politics

Trump’s use of “communism” to describe all Democrats is an indication that he intends to use the politics of “anti-Communism” extensively in his authoritarian, anti-democracy project this year. It’s important to know that the politics of Anti-Communism in the United States was historically not primarily directed against people and political groups that identified themselves as communists. Although to the extent they could find actual, self-identified Communists to trash, they were happy to do that, too.

Time magazine has a recent piece by staff writer Nik Popli that can serve as an example of lazy popular media accounts may treat the topic. (1)

The only surprising thing about Popli’s piece is that it notes, “Trump came of age during that period [of “anti-communist politics of the Cold War and the Red Scare” in the 1950s] and was mentored by Roy Cohn, who served as chief counsel to Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the infamous anti-communist hearings of the 1950s.”

“Coming of age” usually references a young person reaching adulthood. Trump was born in 1946. The beginning of “McCarthyism” is typically dated to February 1950 when the sleazy Senator from Wisconsin managed to grab national publicity for his claims that the State Department was full of Communists. Although he continued to serve in the Senate until 1957, when he passed away with cirrhosis of the liver, his ability to generate national headlines had crashed and burned when the Senate censured him 67-22 in December of 1954. Trump didn’t reach the age of 21 - then still the typical minimal voting age in the US - until 1967.

For a detailed primer on McCarthy and McCarthyism, see Thomas Reeves’ 1982 book, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography.

Popli uses a sane-washing description of the Trumpistas’ current usage:

Progressive candidates have argued that addressing affordability requires expanding government-funded programs, raising taxes on wealthy Americans, and strengthening labor protections - positions Republicans increasingly characterize as evidence that the party is embracing socialism or even communism.” (my emphasis)

This would define even the famously reactionary 19th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck as a socialist and/or communist. But then, in a campaign context, trying to explain who Bismarck was, much less what his idea of a reactionary welfare state was, would fall flat. Although any history geeks in the audience would enjoy the reference.

Here, the formulation linguist George Lakoff used as an example of how not to frame a defense against an accusation is helpful: “Don’t think of an elephant.” Because if you mention an elephant, you automatically invoke the image of an elephant in the hearer’s mind. He applied that concept in a 2004 book, Don’t Think of An Elephant! which is available in the Internet Archive. There he introduces the concept this way:

Every word like elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge: Elephants are large, have floppy ears and a trunk, are associated with circuses, and so on. The world is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.

Richard Nixon found that out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, Nixon addressed the nation on TV. He stood before the nation and said, “I am not a crook.” And everybody thought about him as a crook.

This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame – and it won’t be the frame you want.

In a pair of articles in 2023, he applied this perspective to combatting critics of “woke.” (3)

The anti-“woke” whining from conservative Asleepists is basically a variation of 1950s style redbaiting. Dig into the far right “anti-woke” polemics and you’ll see they claim that a bunch of Jewish Commies started the whole thing. And that is also as frivolous of McCarthy’s typical accusations. (4)

Lakoff was addressing this in the context of political speech and campaigning, i.e., political persuasion or propaganda. In the context of analyzing the framing of “anticommunism” as political rhetoric like this piece, it’s obvious that we have to use the term. He would presumably think that when a candidate it would not be his recommended approach to respond to accusations that he/she is a Communist to say, “No, a communist is x, y, and z, and I’m not any of those things.” Because that reinforces the opponent’s theme.

But responding with a more contemptuous counter like, “You wouldn’t know a communist if one bit you in the leg,” conveys the message, “You’re a liar and a dumbass,” without directly reinforcing the hostile framing. Now, if one party to the debate is a stark raving libertarian or Peter Thiel disciple, they might actually say, “Social Security is a communist program.” In which case the Democratic participant would think, okay, my work here is done!

Nik Popli in his Time piece shows little understanding how this works. For instance, he writes, “There are also no members of Congress who openly identify as members of the Communist Party, and no Communist Party candidate has won state or federal office in modern American history.” (my emphasis) I would classify that as red-baiting-lite, e.g.: none of these Dems say they’re Communists, but those Reds are pretty devious people, you know. (“Reds” in the McCarthy era referred to Communists, not Republicans.)

Do Time’s editors think there is a party in the US that would be generally identified as “the Communist Party”? Presumably Popli is referring to the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), which does exist. That party goes back to the time of its founders, which included the journalist John Reed, as depicted in the 1981 film Reds, in which Reed was played by Warren Beatty. Its active adherents probably number in the thousands today and their direct influence on electoral politics is negligible.

But in the context of political messaging, especially in the electoral context, saying what my previous paragraph says would be falling into the messaging trap that Lakoff warned against. Because it takes sloppy journalism repeating a Republican framing as though it were serious journalism.

Another “tell” in Popli’s article indicating he’s trying to make the 2026 version of McCarthyism sound respectable is that he quotes Matt Bennett, who he identifies as “a co-founder of the centrist Democratic organization Third Way.” Third Way is basically a mouthpiece for corporate neoliberalism. To call them “centrist” is almost an insult to lazy centrists everywhere.

The New York Times has helpfully (?) provided us with an interview with the current Third Way president, Jon Cowan, in which he pretty much defines any Democrat who is serious about fighting Republicans as a seedy leftist: “Some of it is on policy. If you are for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, open borders, you’re a lefty. And those things will really haunt you in a general election.” (5)

Did you catch that? The Green New Deal was a signature Joe Biden priority. So, Biden’s a Commie!!!

Who do you appeal to? What’s your brand and approach in politics? Are you more pragmatic? Do you have an unabashed love of the country? [Or] are you kind of hypercritical of America? Are you willing to pick a range of fights, not just the fights that are really safe and convenient? What’s your track record, also, with winning over swing voters? ...

What it means, ultimately, is influencing all of the people who will run for president who are anywhere from the kind of mushy to more moderate. Not the lefties, but everybody else.

Influencing them, and all the concentric circles around them. Not just their teams and their operatives, but all the key people in the early primary and presidential battleground states. People in media, on social media, etc. Creating a highly persuasive case that we market very widely throughout the Democratic Party, not just in Washington but around the country, so that people believe there is one way to win in ’28, and that is by nominating somebody who can win over that middle, and rejecting anybody from the far left. [my emphasis]

Good Lord, these people are tiresome!

The word “Republican” does not appear in the printed interview. Because Third Way is about defeating actual Democrats, not about defeating Republicans. Much less about campaigning for anything that is actually constructive for people who aren’t billionaires.

A 1998 opinion piece by the late historian Tony Judt defined the neoliberal “third way” concept like this:

Each age has its cliche. Ours is the "third way." Hardly a week passes without a public figure in Britain, Germany or the United States hailing the coming of the third way: the new, "post-ideological" approach to politics and policy making. Sociologists theorize about it, policy seminars promote it, Presidents and prime ministers bask in the reflected glory of its modest ambitions. No reasonable person can dissent; the bad old days of big projects, of left and right, are gone for good. The political goals of the third way are small goals -- and in the cliche of an earlier age, small is beautiful.

Much of this is humbug, of course. In the English-speaking world the third way is just a new label for an old electoral tactic -- ''triangulating'' between ideas and voters to maximize short-term advantage. Tony Blair's Government -- the European reference for contemporary effusions about a third way -- is the natural child of Margaret Thatcher (much as Reagan begat Clinton). She swung the political pendulum so aggressively against compassion and government intervention that for the first time a government of the "left" could occupy ground somewhere to the right of center and get credit for radical intentions just by standing still and emoting fuzzily. New Labor's third way is opportunism with a human face. [my emphasis] (6)

And Judt seems to have been trying to be generous!

In the ensuing 18 years, the American version of the “third way” has descended into sad hackery.

Notes:

(1) Popli, Nik (2026): As Trump Brands Them ‘Godless Communists,’ Democrats Divided on How to Respond. Time 07/13/2026. <https://time.com/article/2026/07/13/as-trump-brands-them-godless-communists-democrats-divided-on-how-to-respond/> (Accessed : 2026-13-07).

(2) Michael Harrington, a founder member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and for a long time its most famous member, described Bismarck’s approach to governance as “authoritarian modernization.” Socialism: Past and Future (1989), 45. New York: Arcade Publishing.

(3) Lakoff, George (2023): Time to Get Woke About Woke. FrameLab 03/16/2023. And Lakoff and Gil Duran, Redpilled, QAnon, Anti-Vaccine: Conservative versions of 'woke'. 03/20/2023. Available at the Internet Archive.

(4) Iber, Patrick (2026): Which Way, Western Marxism? (Review). Dissent 73:2, 101-108. <https://muse.jhu.edu/article/990886>

(5) Glueck, Katie (2026): Can These Democrats Make Combative Centrism Happen? [Note: Third Way is only “combative” against Democrats who sound like they are to the left of Donald Trump. New York Times 03/02/2026. Gift link: <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/us/politics/democrats-centrism-2028-election.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xVA.6OJo.M8i0vhfJPCOM&smid=url-share> (Accessed : 2026-13-07).

(6) Judt, Tony (1998): The 'Third Way' Is No Route to Paradise. New York Times 09/27/1998. (Accessed: 2026-13-07).