Just say 'Dictator'

Pro tip: Just use the word dictator. When you’re attempting to explain the debacle that is these United States right now, to anyone other than your academic, journalistic, legal friends, use the word regular people do: dictator.

About 15 percent of us are tethered to political news on a regular basis. Roughly 80-85 percent of Americans follow politics casually or not at all. It's unlikely that cohort is using the six-syllable “authoritarian" in regular conversation.

Fascist? People are looking for death camps, much like when we say “Nazi”-- and we're not there...yet. Hopefully, we won't be. Besides, the trap of American exceptionalism makes ‘fascist’ harder to believe. As of right now, around half of the country is cheering on the extraordinary rendition of more than 250 Venezuelans, alleged members of Tren de Aragua (alleged doing a lot of work here.) The Guardian wrote last week about the country’s descent into authoritarianism: “Some 55% of voters approve of his handling of border security and immigration, while 43% disapprove.”

A dictator is defined by Merriam Webster as "a person granted absolute emergency power," “one holding complete autocratic control: a person with unlimited governmental power" or "one ruling in an absolute and often oppressive way."

The dictionary definitions of ‘dictator’ fit the sitch in the U.S., but in only three syllables.

What’s more, ‘dictator’ is precise. We can accurately say that at this moment, the president is attempting to rule as a dictator.

Curtis Yarvin, a proponent of absolute sovereignty even calls for a CEO dictator: “If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia,” he said.

That doesn’t mean that Trump isn’t an authoritarian. The Guardian details that argument clearly.

However, there’s very little reason not to use the word dictator, especially if your goal is to persuade.

The man even said it himself: he promised to be a dictator, but only on day one. “Sixty days in, the only question is whether the warnings went far enough.”

We already know that in terms of headlines, readers prefer simple, common language. The length of the headline isn't as important as the number of syllables in the words (the fewer the better) and how common the words are.

In an article about using plain language, the Nielson Norman Group makes it clear:

When I think back to the students I taught in Durham, North Carolina, I can picture them in their homes getting pissed off and saying something like "man, this dude is a [friggin’] dictator!"

"Man, he's an authoritarian!"? Not so much. The same goes for the folks I covered in eastern North Carolina. Dictator.

Even though fascist or authoritarian may be more concrete, our compatriots may not see that in the negative light we think they will (as further evidenced by the election results and polling).

In November, Rolling Stone published “You Can’t Despair, Because That’s What They Want:”

In the article, history professor and author of Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, Ruth Ben-Ghiat also says ““He instigated a violent coup attempt,” and — instead of “having to go into exile or going to prison, like in Peru” — he “managed to paint it as a positive thing” or to make “a lot of Americans shrug their shoulders at it.” These are “preconditions for autocracy,” she insists.”

People don't need to know which part of the horseshoe a dictator is on to believe the argument.

Slate argued last week that “We’ve Officially Entered the Next Phase of Trump’s Dictatorship Era.”

Steven Levitsky, author of “How Democracies Die” and “Tyranny of the Minority,” recently presented his argument in The Atlantic that what we’re experiencing is competitive authoritarianism: “a system in which parties compete in elections but incumbent abuse of power systematically tilts the playing field against the opposition.” Ben Raderstorf of Protect Democracy summarizes Levitsky’s argument, and also shares the gift link to listen to Levitsky’s piece. But even without reading the piece, ask yourself if you can successfully convey “competitive authoritarianism” to the average American in a way that they will immediately get it. 

Trusting News published four questions to ask during pitch meetings. One of those is: "Will this story be hearable by a broad audience? Is there anything we should do or avoid to make that possible?"

If you want what you're attempting to communicate to be fully and quickly understood by the most people possible, particularly those resistant to the autocrat/fascist/oligarchy narrative, just say dictator.