Donald Trump’s response to the killing of Charlie Kirk demonstrates how political violence can be reframed as partisan accusation. Before investigators had identified a suspect or established a motive, Trump declared the “radical left” responsible. He argued that progressives who compared conservative figures to Nazis had created a climate in which violence became likely. He then referred to “these terrorists.” The progression from political rhetoric to the language of terrorism illustrates how partisan categories are fused with terms normally reserved for organized violence.

In 2025 we must rethink political definitions, because old labels no longer match the coalitions and incentives now acting under them, and the mismatch skews judgment, obscures accountability, and distorts how citizens read conflict. Clear terms enable clear judgment.

The rule of law is often invoked as a shield against power. Yet the paradox is that law itself generates the conditions in which power moves most freely. To grasp this, one must set aside the familiar scene of diplomats arguing at the United Nations or judges issuing unenforceable rulings from The Hague. Those are the most visible but least effective parts of the system.

Chomsky wrote in 2011 against the background of the debt‑ceiling standoff. He framed “decline” as a long process rather than a sudden break. He tied it to domestic choices. He stressed power, not mood.

Hard-right populist parties have advanced across much of the democratic world. They combine nationalist rhetoric with state activism, offering voters tangible benefits while eroding institutional checks. The result is not communism but a nationalist-statist politics that preserves private property while redistributing selectively. Its rise is best understood not as a cultural accident but as a consequence of capitalism’s own production of inequality.