Over the past few weeks I鈥檝e witnessed a fascinating phenomenon: The closer we get to Election Day, the more those on the fringe deploy the word 鈥淣azis鈥� to serve their own agenda. Nazis, fascism, Hitler, genocide鈥攁ll words hijacked and robbed of their meaning, all disconnected from their reality, un-fashioned and re-fashioned to serve a political goal.

War is now genocide, everyone on the other side is a fascist or a Nazi, and leaders we want to take down are Hitler. In the next 24 hours and especially after the election, be prepared to be inundated with these terms.

It鈥檚 nothing new. In fact it鈥檚 been happening for decades as people constantly move the goal posts of meaning for words that have power in American discourse. Who can forget the Republican obsession鈥攁nd it wasn鈥檛 just the far 谤颈驳丑迟鈥攚颈迟丑 ? It鈥檚 the knee-jerk response to anything that makes us uncomfortable, anything we don鈥檛 like, anything we disagree with鈥攁nd everyone is doing it.

If you don鈥檛 like Israel or the war in Gaza, it鈥檚 genocide. You hate Donald Trump? Well it must be because he鈥檚 Hitler, 鈥渓iterally Hitler鈥� as some people put it. It鈥檚 a linguistic free for all. If you can鈥檛 make your case thoughtfully and intelligently, just grab a word that will feel like you鈥檝e dropped a bomb when it comes out of your mouth and apply it to whatever or whoever you don鈥檛 like. This is how we destroy people. Words connected to the Holocaust are now completely untethered from their historical contexts and have broadened so far that they are rendered meaningless, but we still use them as if they are nuclear bombs, reserved only for the worst of the worst.

I get why people do it. Nazis have been established as the ultimate bad guys, the dark heart of the evilest of evil. It鈥檚 a convenient categorization because once you call someone a Nazi, the assumption is that everyone will agree with you because everyone knows Nazis are bad. One obvious problem with this is that it鈥檚 not hard to get otherwise reasonable people to agree that 鈥減unching a Nazi鈥� (cue the clip of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones punching a Nazi) is a good thing, so call someone (or half the country) a Nazi and the implication is that any violence done toward such people is not only justified but also morally required. We have to take down the Nazis, right? We can鈥檛 allow fascism (which is always the other side) to reign in America, right? It鈥檚 the same thinking that has paved the way for open discrimination, bigotry, and violence against American Jews since Oct. 7. Accuse Israel of genocide and suddenly all Jews are Nazis deserving of violence. How convenient.

In many cases it鈥檚 coming from highly educated people鈥攁cademic elites who presumably believe that their education has given them license to abuse terms in whatever way they like. It鈥檚 the ultimate entitlement: I get to decide what words mean and you have to accept it. I have the luxury of changing the meaning as I see fit because I am morally superior.

It鈥檚 the ultimate entitlement: I get to decide what words mean and you have to accept it.

I鈥檒l state the obvious: Most of the people using this language are coming from the fringe left, though it鈥檚 certainly creeped into the social media posts of some on the liberal left. But I see it on the right, too. 鈥淟eftism is literally Hitler,鈥� wrote one very educated woman on her social media page.

But right now, a good segment of the political left is convinced that Trump is the next Hitler who has vowed to usher in a new Third Reich. For example, one friend is tired of the 鈥淒on鈥檛 let politics ruin your friendships鈥� posts, and suggests that half the country is cheering on Nazi ideology. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time to ruin some f鈥攌ing relationships over this s鈥攖.鈥� Another wonders how he can go about his usual business when 鈥渁ctual Nazis are prowling the streets.鈥� If you鈥檙e voting for Trump you鈥檙e 鈥渟tanding with the Nazis鈥� or just 鈥淣azi scum,鈥� writes another. Few people on the left will actually engage with his policies on immigration, the economy, and workers鈥� rights鈥攖he things that actually matter most to most Americans鈥攂ecause it鈥檚 easier to just call Trump a Nazi and write him off. And doing this reveals something deeply troubling: the extent to which so many people on the left are completely disconnected from what many average Americans are experiencing.

I reflect on my many years of Holocaust research, teaching, and publications and I think to myself: You have no idea what Nazism is.

But never mind those inconvenient details. After all, the Trump rally in Madison Square Garden was not a rally in which jokes some people find offensive were said. Instead, it was a Nazi rally, and people posted about how they were chilled to the bone thinking of the other Nazi rally that was held there in 1939. But as one rando on Twitter put it, Billy Joel also performed at this venue. Trump is no more Hitler than he is Billy Joel no matter how much we want it to be so.

Using the language of the Holocaust is a way to shut down dialogue, to make sure that people are afraid, to push them down under the surface of mainstream public discourse. But when people are silenced and pushed into corners and below surfaces, they don鈥檛 go away; they get angry, and rightfully so.

Using the language of the Holocaust is a way to shut down dialogue, to make sure that people are afraid, to push them down under the surface of mainstream public discourse.

There is nowhere this is more pronounced than on university campuses and academic circles. Recently, 91传媒week op-ed editor that she calls a love letter to her community on the eve of the election. In the video, she explains why she is voting for Trump and why he is the candidate that most represents 91传媒 values. It鈥檚 a compelling video that breaks down many of the lies that are repeated constantly about Trump, and I passed it along to some liberal academic friends who I knew would not stop talking to me for having the audacity to entertain such a thing without banishing it to the dustbin of history. I shared it because it was smart and interesting and compelling鈥攁nd because I still care about dialogue. I have friends who are voting for Harris. I have friends who are voting for Trump. All of them are good people who have good reasons for their decisions. I have also seen compelling cases made for Harris being the candidate that most represents 91传媒 values. We can entertain both of these possibilities.

But sharing Ungar-Sargon鈥檚 video started another kind of conversation鈥攁bout the impossibility of having this kind of dialogue in academia. 鈥淲hen you live in the academic universe,鈥� said one friend and colleague, 鈥渋t鈥檚 impossible to discuss nuance.鈥� If nothing else, the pervasiveness of the hijacked language of the Holocaust in academic circles and the fear that academics not voting for Harris have when it comes to voicing their dissent have revealed that there is a sickness on many of our campuses.

I remember earlier this year when I learned that the line attributed to Trump about there being in the wake of Charlottesville was something taken completely out of context. I felt betrayed by the media and by journalists I had trusted once I listened to the entire clip and discovered that it had been edited in such a way as to paint Trump as the Nazi of our time. I remember sending the link to the complete video to friends who didn鈥檛 want to listen to it because they were so committed to their belief that he is a Nazi. 鈥淧eople are not willing to think it through,鈥� says my colleague, not even in academia. Even when presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, people will still insist on their original thought.

鈥淧eople are not willing to think it through,鈥� says my colleague, not even in academia.

Ungar-Sargon鈥檚 video felt important to me, even alongside competing claims for Harris as the appropriate 91传媒 choice, because it suggests that the nature of 91传媒 values is such that one could say either candidate represents them. (Let鈥檚 not forget the constantly competing perspectives of Hillel and Shammai.) The most important take away from the video, for me, is not necessarily that one should vote for Trump, but rather that it鈥檚 not inherently transgressive to vote for him. It鈥檚 not anti-91传媒. But as one academic friend who is voting for Trump told me, 鈥淚f Trump wins I still have to act either sad and anxious or indifferent.鈥� Why? Because in academia, admitting you voted for Trump is suicide because you will have become, yourself, a Nazi in the eyes of many of your colleagues.

People are afraid, and using these words can make us feel more powerful, as if we are naming the thing that needs to be destroyed, which is half the battle.

There鈥檚 a desperation in the hurling of these linguistic missives, and I understand why people feel desperate. For many, issues that they care about like abortion and other women鈥檚 rights, are seemingly on the line. People are afraid, and using these words can make us feel more powerful, as if we are naming the thing that needs to be destroyed, which is half the battle. But when we do it we are playing with fire, and slowly but surely we are ushering in the exact kind of violence that we thought we were fighting.

Monica Osborne聽is a former professor of literature, critical theory, and 91传媒 studies. She is Editor at Large at The 91传媒 Journal and is author of 鈥淭he Midrashic Impulse.鈥� X @DrMonicaOsborne