“The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals.”

— Joseph Goebbels, diary entry, Jan. 29, 1942 

I have read an awful lot of right-wing propaganda in my time. I’ve done a whole book dissecting conservative arguments, taking them apart piece by piece. But I’ve never felt my intelligence insulted like I do when reading the words of Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

Usually conservative arguments have something slightly compelling about them. There’s some supposed evidence, some reasoning, something to back them up. Then those of us who find them abhorrent have to explain why the evidence presented is misleading, why what seems like logic is in fact sophistry. For example, if the claim is that a higher minimum wage will kill jobs, because raising the price of something reduces demand for it, we have to show that the weight of the economic evidence suggests that this doesn’t happen, and then give a theory explaining why. 

But the claims Stephen Miller typically makes are of an entirely different kind. While some conservatives at least try to look like they’re engaging in rational argument, Miller does not. He doesn’t even seem to be trying to persuade people. He’s not appealing to their rationality at all. He speaks to their gut, not their brain. 

  For example, Hillary Clinton—of whom this magazine is certainly not a fan—recently criticized the Republican tax plan, saying that “The wealthiest 5% would get tax breaks. Everyone else would see crucial health care and nutrition assistance programs slashed.” In response, Miller declared that:

“Democrats [are] coming out hard against No Tax on Tips. Democrats hate the working class.”

What? Democratic politicians have almost uniformly supportedNo Tax On Tips. The No Tax On Tips Act just passed the Senate unanimously. Hillary Clinton was arguing against tax cuts for the wealthy, and against cutting social services for the poor. That’s a completely different issue, and her assessment is consistent with the analysis done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of what Trump’s budget will do: 

Does Miller attempt to refute the analysis? Does he even try to explain why he thinks Democrats who support No Tax on Tips actually oppose it? Does he provide any evidence for his claim that they “hate” the working class? Does he try to justify cutting Medicaid or giving tax cuts to the rich?

No. He does none of these things, because Miller isn’t engaged in rational discourse. He’s engaged in pure mindless agitprop. He says whatever he thinks will most inflame sentiment against the other side, and then repeats it in the hopes that if it is said with enough confidence, from a large enough megaphone, it will be believed. It doesn’t matter if it bears any relationship to reality. He’s not trying to convince an audience that is interested in finding the truth. He’s speaking to people who already despise Democrats and want more red meat. 

Or look at how he talks about immigration. “We are being conquered,” he told Fox News host Jesse Watters in 2023. “This is a complete resettlement of America in real time…a generation from now… people will not know the country that they are living in… Unless there’s massive large-scale deportations by the millions, it will be irrevocable.” By his account, immigration is a “mass invasion of our country.” Miller says that the Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus (the requirement that the government actually provide a reason if it’s going to keep you in a prison cell) because we are being invaded.

But we’re not being invaded. That isn’t happening. It’s just a figment of the demented, paranoid imaginations of Miller and Trump. Armies invade. Immigrants migrate, and the difference is the difference between someone who comes armed with a Kalashnikov and someone who comes armed with a dish towel. The “invaders” Miller wants to repel are largely ordinary workers who build houses, sell food, pick grapes, tend gardens, and clean buildings for very little money. Miller knows it, too: according to the conservative Washington Examiner, he recently berated top ICE and Homeland Security officials in a meeting, demanding to know “Why aren’t you at Home Depot? Why aren’t you at 7-Eleven?” and asking them why the agencies had been primarily targeting those who had committed crimes beyond immigration violations. It’s only in Miller’s mind that the people doing shitty jobs under often brutal conditions are a threat to the foundations of our civilization. Does he attempt to provide any proof? No, apart from highlighting the occasional crime by an unauthorized migrant, which is no more proof of a menacing population than pointing to American school shootings shows that all of us are homicidal maniacs. 

Like I say, though, Miller has no interest in even trying to justify his outrageously false statements. “The entire Democrat party is now operating in service of a single issue and objective: unlimited mass third world migration,” he says. Really? A single objective? I mean, even if you thought Democrats were for open borders, which they are not (to my own disappointment), you think they have no interest in any of the rest of their platform? Not even abortion rights or gun safety? Why did they pass the Inflation Reduction Act, then? To further “mass third world migration”? 

Or look at the way Miller talks about the judiciary. “This is a judicial coup by communist, Marxist judges,” he frothed on Newsmax after a judge ruled that the Trump administration could not bar Harvard University from admitting foreign students. As recently discussed in this magazine, the right uses the term “Marxist” to include centrist liberals who subscribe to none of the tenets of Marxism, and its use here is peculiar. After all, the judge’s ruling was restraining the government from dictating the enrollment decisions of a private institution. Communists are generally skeptical of private power and endorse expansive state power. Miller said that this “communist judge has created a constitutional right for foreign nationals, living in foreign countries, to be admitted to American universities funded by American tax dollars.” In fact, the judge is restraining the government’s ability to tell private institutions what to do, a goal that “small government” conservatives should be sympathetic to. 

When judges rule against Trump, Miller denounces it as “judicial tyranny,” and a common refrain among the MAGA movement is that federal judges shouldn’t be able to tell the executive what to do by putting injunctions on Trump’s actions. “Another judge puts himself in charge of the Pentagon. This is a judicial coup,” Miller said after a federal judge ruled that Trump couldn’t simply use deportations by the military to evade rules on what the Department of Homeland Security could do. Importantly, Miller never bothered to discuss the actual legal question at issue. When judges block the president from doing something, they ostensibly do it because what the president has done is illegal, and the judge’s job is to interpret and apply the law. Of course, it is possible for the judge to usurp or abuse that power, by preventing the president from doing something that is actually perfectly legal. 

But to prove that a judge is abusing their power, you have to wade into the legal question at issue. You have to show that the judge’s argument about the law is faulty and explain why. This, Miller usually does not try to do, instead ranting on Newsmax that the American people elected Trump to restore the country’s sovereignty and the judge is thwarting the will of the electorate. To any intelligent listener, this is not persuasive, because the question here is whether Trump’s actions are legal, not whether he was elected to do them. Does he have the statutory or constitutional authority to throw all of the foreign students out of Harvard simply because he hates Harvard? 

I have not seen Miller attempt to make a legal argument, and when he does go into legal questions, he generally doesn’t know what he’s talking about. For instance, after a federal court blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s revocation of Temporary Protected Status for some Venezuelans, Miller said this was yet another example of a judicial coup: 

"Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts, that's the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases… So, when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress enacted."

But that’s not true. Immigration cases are heard in immigration courts, but cases about whether the Executive Branch has acted lawfully are heard in federal courts. If you read the judge’s opinion, you’ll realize that the case is mostly about whether the Trump administration complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a question that rightly belongs in front of a federal judge. Miller’s statement to reporters about the case was confident, smug, and entirely wrong. Astonishingly, this is a man who recently had the gall to lecture reporters about their poor understanding of immigration law. 

This is a man who just does not care whether anything he says is true. “The days of China pillaging America are over,” Miller declares. Pillaging! Were we really pillaged by a country that has been cheaply making our consumer products and selling them to us? (Chinese journalist Shen Shiwei responded, sensibly: “We Chinese people have invested a lot in development, not wars. For decades, American business and people have benefited a lot from good and affordable products manufactured by hardworking Chinese. No need to blame Chinese in such a misleading way.”) Joe Biden, Miller says, “trafficked half a million children.” What?? But by the time your head stops spinning, he’s on to the next baseless statement. “Each deportation of an illegal alien household will save taxpayers up to $1 million, based on long-term benefits provided to illegals.” Any proof? Who needs proof when you can just say things? 

When he does make an argument, the counterarguments are so obvious that Miller appears to think anyone listening to him is very, very stupid. For instance, in response to claims that the administration is violating due process, he says that “The right of ‘due process’ is to protect citizens from their government, not to protect foreign trespassers from removal.” He’s wrong in two ways. First, rights are not guarantees for citizens alone. They are restrictions on government conduct that apply regardless of who the government is targeting. Second, he ignores the crucial issue of how it is determined that someone is “trespassing.” Without some kind of process, with some kind of burden of proof, what is to prevent the government from deporting people who have a right to be in the country? 

I am struck by the fact that Miller doesn’t even try to be convincing. He doesn’t care if what he says is true, and isn’t even trying to prove it. Truth is whatever the MAGA leaders say it is. Miller is probably presuming his words are only going to spread in a right-wing echo chamber where you can say “The courts are full of Marxists” and nobody is going to bother to examine the facts of the cases or read the opinions. 

This is a brainless kind of politics. It consists of just saying things over and over. Judicial coup. This is a judicial coup. JUDICIAL COUP!! Marxist judges! Communist judges!! We are in a war. They are trying to destroy the country. They are invading. They are evil. They love rapists. They want you to be raped. They hate you. They hate democracy. They hate America. They must be stopped. Over and over and over and over. Do not pause for something so unnecessary as “backing up your claims.” That is not how this works. Just scream about enemies until your audience is howling for blood. 

 There is a famous distinction between three kinds of rhetoric: logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos is the appeal to the listener’s reasoning faculty. Ethos is an appeal based on the authority and credibility of the speaker. Pathos is an appeal to the listener’s emotions. Miller doesn’t even try a logical appeal. Instead, he is from the Libs of TikTok school of political rhetoric: He presents us with a person to hate, tells us they are destroying the country, and hopes we won’t ask for much evidence because we are too angry at this person for destroying the country.

I always wonder whether it is worth refuting right-wing talking points. Plenty of my colleagues on the left don’t think we should waste our time on it. Usually I disagree with them, because I believe that plenty of people who are being persuaded by conservative pseudo-evidence might be persuaded of the counterargument if it was made available to them. But in the case of Miller, I really do doubt that it’s worth addressing this stuff, because anyone who could take it seriously clearly isn’t interested in doing any critical thinking. And after all, as Christopher Hitchens famously said, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” 

I hope that there are enough thinking people left out there to see Stephen Miller’s tactics for what they are. Sadly, his statements regularly go viral on social media, showing that plenty of Trump supporters simply aren’t interested in the question of whether what they’re supporting makes any sense.