Elon Musk’s latest jab at Wikipedia has spotlighted the ridiculous leftist narrative surrounding former President Donald Trump. After the website revived a page labeling Trump a “fascist,” Musk didn’t hold back, labeling Wikipedia as “broken.” It’s hard not to share his sentiment when one realizes that a mere two editors crafted a page on something as complex as fascism, suggesting this might be more about an agenda than accurate historical analysis.
The page, originally titled “Donald Trump and Fascism,” has undergone a disingenuous makeover to “Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism.” One can’t help but wonder if this rebranding was an attempt to make it seem more scholarly, while in reality, it mostly served as a soapbox for leftist academics with an axe to grind. The page’s revisions overwhelmingly referenced sources that would make any high school history teacher’s head spin, using comparisons that include the January 6 Capitol riot to Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch. Clearly, crafting history is much easier when focusing on a political vendetta rather than facts.
Wikipedia is broken https://t.co/luZErdUJ1x
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 29, 2024
Rindsberg’s investigation reveals that the reintroduction of this page conveniently coincided with a Guardian article suggesting Trump might be a fascist. Surprise, surprise—when it comes to the opposition, the left’s timing is always impeccable. Meanwhile, the “Trumpism” page offers a real treat, painting Trump supporters as a nasty stew of xenophobia, racism, and various other ‘isms’ the left has decided to deride without providing the full context or acknowledging any positive aspects of the movement.
Deep dives into the sourcing reveal that articles meant to back up claims against “Trumpism” often contradicted their very own conclusions. A notable example was an article appearing in Scientific American that criticized sensational media portrayals of Trump supporters, yet somehow was twisted to justify labeling them as fascists. Some editors on the discussion board of the “Trumpism” page expressed their frustration about this skewed representation, and their concerns fell largely on deaf ears. Instead of constructive revisions, those who attempted to introduce neutrality were sidelined or edited out completely.
While it’s important to acknowledge history’s complexities, many seem to forget that the label of “fascism” has become little more than a catch-all insult. Vince Lombardi or a family pet could be labeled “fascist” with how rampant the term has become. The reality is that actual fascism has its roots in specific historical events and ideologies, far removed from modern-day political commentary. The landscape of political discourse appears far more akin to a middle school clique than a serious examination of political ideology, and the consequences of this hyperbolic rhetoric could prove dangerous as Democrats double down on painting Trump with these broad strokes in the lead-up to the election.
As the 2024 election looms closer, the echoes of this rhetoric are becoming increasingly troubling, emitting warnings not just for Trump, whose safety has already been threatened on multiple occasions, but for all those engaged in the political discourse. If left unchecked, this campaign to redefine political opponents could lead to serious ramifications not just for Trump, but for democracy itself. The historical revisionism and politicization of factual reporting serve as both a call to arms and a cautionary tale, a reminder that the battleground of ideas is often as fierce as any political campaign.