Pope Trump? Politics & the Normalization of Contempt
Recently, Trump made waves when he posted an image of himself as the Pope, timed just ahead of the Vatican conclave. In previous days, he and many in his camp, have joked about him being the next pontiff. On the surface, it might seem like another instance of his performative bravado. But taken in context with his wider behaviour, it reflects a deliberate pattern, one that consistently seeks to diminish others in order to elevate himself.
As we well know, this is not new for the President. He has repeatedly referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Governor,” subtly implying that Canada is subordinate to the United States. He assigns taunting nicknames for his opponents. He has mocked global leaders as weak, irrelevant, or desperate. However, what appears to be insult is actually a rhetorical strategy: misname, belittle, and mock ones opponent, while visually or symbolically insert oneself into positions of supremacy. The tactic reframes diplomacy not as mutual respect or shared governance, but as a fight for top dog- a fight which Trump he alone deserves to win.
The goal is not simply to ridicule, but to shift how people perceive and respond to legitimacy and authority. These public diminishments serve as social cues. They teach audiences that those outside the in-group- those not aligned with the dominant narrative- are not to be taken seriously. More than that, they are to be disrespected, mocked, or discarded.
This strategy doesn’t stay confined to politics. It conditions followers in how to treat others around these and other issues of disagreement. We can see its effects in the public discourse around immigrants (where they are characterized as “illegals” and “invaders”), 2SLGBTQIA+ people (slandered as “groomers” and “degenerates”), and racial justice advocates (judged as “thugs” and “terrorists”). These aren’t just empty words. They are part of a coherent method of dehumanization that makes cruelty appear not only acceptable but necessary, even righteous.
What’s especially important to recognize is that this approach is not exclusive to Trump or those who support him. While the right has unquestionably taken this further than most, everyone is prone to this tendency. It is a pattern anyone can fall into, particularly when emotions are high, the stakes feel existential, and, perhaps above all, we believe we have the moral high ground. Even after I posted about this dynamic recently, one of the first responses agreed with me, then when on to call Trump a “piece of crap.” The irony wasn’t lost on me.
This isn’t about tone-policing or respectability politics in the face of injustice. Anger has its place, and naming harm is essential. If someone is functioning in ways that reflect fascism, then calling them a fascist is not out of line. But the impulse to strip people of dignity, even those causing harm, mirrors the same logic used by those we oppose: that some people simple deserve it. That logic underwrites every form of systemic oppression. When we adopt it, even against oppressors, we reinforce the very dynamics we claim to resist.
Look at it this way: when we normalize contempt and dehumanizing language, we are implicitly saying that such behaviour is acceptable when you are “in the right”. However, since everyone believes that of themselves, it simply reinforces the pattern. Here’s the catch: the marginalized and oppressed always pay the highest price in these dynamics, so by contributing to the normalization of this behaviour, we contribute to the very harm of those we are seeking to protect.
There is a difference between accountability and retribution. There is a difference between critique and contempt. And while those lines are not always easy to maintain, they are necessary to hold. How we respond to those we believe to be wrong is not incidental. It reflects the integrity of our character and our causes.
If we are committed to justice, then our means must reflect our ends. That includes rejecting the normalization of contempt , even when it feels justified. Not because those responsible for harm deserve protection, but because our collective dignity requires it.