A HISTORY OF (CAMPAIGN) VIOLENCE
Mar. 14th, 2016 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogThere are concerns over Trump’s rallies getting increasingly extra-rowdy at the expense of anti-Trump protesters trying to express their anti-Trumpism. There was extra dithering over the Chicago rally, which was canceled at the last minute – possibly for security concerns, possibly for publicity purposes.
A lot of what’s being said about all this is agenda-driven horse poop. But some of it isn’t. I’m required to comment on this, so I’ll try to confine my comments to the “non-horse poop” category. I'll leave it to you to decide if I succeed.
1. It’s worth remembering that Trump is far from the first POTUS candidate to screen his audiences for protesters and ejecting those who get in. We’ve been seeing that since at least George W Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. That doesn’t make it okay, I’m just saying this isn’t something only his campaign has done. That said, we haven’t seen actual fights break out – not to this degree.
2. I don’t believe that violence is an intentional part of Trump’s plan. But a case can be made that Trump is at least partly responsible for the violence, both in terms of his general campaign rhetoric and his response to protesters disrupting his speeches.
3. Thanks to the way the Chicago rally played out, it's possible that things are going to escalate from here – and not just on Trump’s side of the fence.
There’s little doubt that up to now, Trump protesters have been peaceful. (The one exception I know of is the rube throwing tomatoes in Iowa. Sorry, throwing tomatoes is not free speech, it’s assault. Yes, it’s not the same thing as throwing punches, bricks or grenades. But if yr going to go that route, then yr basically saying it’s acceptable for me to express my opinions to you by bombarding you with farm produce – and if I take you up on that, I guarantee you won’t be defending my 1A rights for long.)
But let’s admit too that Trump isn’t the only candidate benefiting from voter anger. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is tapping into a lot of anger and frustration on the Left. To be clear, Sanders – very much unlike Trump – is in no way encouraging violence. But I have seen plenty of #FeelTheBern rhetoric directed at both Trump and Hillary, and it’s not exactly calm and collected. And if you put Bernie supporters and Trump supporters in the same space … well, it’s not going to be friendly.
4. That’s why I think it’s counterproductive for protesters to stage rallies at Trump events from this point on. It’s not going to change minds, but it is going to increase the possibility of violence. And all that will accomplish is giving Trump more fuel to feed his own bushfire. Trump clearly thrives on conflict, and (at least so far) these incidents are not hurting his poll numbers any – and that’s with the protesters not fighting back. For those who do fight back, or do anything remotely physical – like, say, jump a security barricade – Trump will cheerfully brand them as thugs and terrorists who start trouble, and most if not all of his Trump tribe will buy it.
Furthermore, the one PR advantage that anti-Trump people have over Trump is that he and his followers have the reputation of being dumb hotheads angry enough to beat up people people they disagree with, especially if they’re non-white. This only works in favor of the anti-Trump people as long they don’t stoop to the same level. After that, they’ll be lumped into the same “dumb violent hothead” category. You can scream “BUT THEY STARTED IT!” all you want, but the truth is no one who isn’t already on yr side will care.
5. I’m not saying no one should protest Trump’s rhetoric. By all means, they’re entitled. I’m just saying you don't have to get in the face of Trump fans to do it. I understand the need to scream in their face that they’re wrong. It’s therapeutic. But it’ won’t change anything, and the risks outweigh any possible political benefits.
6. But who am I kidding? We’re pretty much beyond reason at this stage. For far too many people, this isn’t just an election – it’s an ideological war, and enough people on both sides have bullshitted themselves into believing the Other Side must be destroyed like Sauron. And while only a small minority of people may be spoiling for an actual fight, the psychology of the mob mentality has a way of turning otherwise non-violent people into temporary recruits.
Josh Marshall at TPM says as much here. He’s pretty sure it’s only a matter of time before someone gets killed. I hope he’s wrong. But I wouldn’t bet against him.
7. A final note for the anti-Trump Republicans who are aghast at all this ugliness – finally we can agree on something! Except for one thing – sorry, but many of you are complicit. The conservative anger Trump is mining didn’t come from nowhere. That’s the product of a couple of decades worth of GOP political strategy, and now yr reaping the glorious results. And guess what – yr back-up plan is turning out to be the one extremist guy you hate almost as much as Trump. So step up and own it. It’s not like you actually disagree with him on a lot of his rhetoric.
Asking for it,
This is dF
A lot of what’s being said about all this is agenda-driven horse poop. But some of it isn’t. I’m required to comment on this, so I’ll try to confine my comments to the “non-horse poop” category. I'll leave it to you to decide if I succeed.
1. It’s worth remembering that Trump is far from the first POTUS candidate to screen his audiences for protesters and ejecting those who get in. We’ve been seeing that since at least George W Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. That doesn’t make it okay, I’m just saying this isn’t something only his campaign has done. That said, we haven’t seen actual fights break out – not to this degree.
2. I don’t believe that violence is an intentional part of Trump’s plan. But a case can be made that Trump is at least partly responsible for the violence, both in terms of his general campaign rhetoric and his response to protesters disrupting his speeches.
3. Thanks to the way the Chicago rally played out, it's possible that things are going to escalate from here – and not just on Trump’s side of the fence.
There’s little doubt that up to now, Trump protesters have been peaceful. (The one exception I know of is the rube throwing tomatoes in Iowa. Sorry, throwing tomatoes is not free speech, it’s assault. Yes, it’s not the same thing as throwing punches, bricks or grenades. But if yr going to go that route, then yr basically saying it’s acceptable for me to express my opinions to you by bombarding you with farm produce – and if I take you up on that, I guarantee you won’t be defending my 1A rights for long.)
But let’s admit too that Trump isn’t the only candidate benefiting from voter anger. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is tapping into a lot of anger and frustration on the Left. To be clear, Sanders – very much unlike Trump – is in no way encouraging violence. But I have seen plenty of #FeelTheBern rhetoric directed at both Trump and Hillary, and it’s not exactly calm and collected. And if you put Bernie supporters and Trump supporters in the same space … well, it’s not going to be friendly.
4. That’s why I think it’s counterproductive for protesters to stage rallies at Trump events from this point on. It’s not going to change minds, but it is going to increase the possibility of violence. And all that will accomplish is giving Trump more fuel to feed his own bushfire. Trump clearly thrives on conflict, and (at least so far) these incidents are not hurting his poll numbers any – and that’s with the protesters not fighting back. For those who do fight back, or do anything remotely physical – like, say, jump a security barricade – Trump will cheerfully brand them as thugs and terrorists who start trouble, and most if not all of his Trump tribe will buy it.
Furthermore, the one PR advantage that anti-Trump people have over Trump is that he and his followers have the reputation of being dumb hotheads angry enough to beat up people people they disagree with, especially if they’re non-white. This only works in favor of the anti-Trump people as long they don’t stoop to the same level. After that, they’ll be lumped into the same “dumb violent hothead” category. You can scream “BUT THEY STARTED IT!” all you want, but the truth is no one who isn’t already on yr side will care.
5. I’m not saying no one should protest Trump’s rhetoric. By all means, they’re entitled. I’m just saying you don't have to get in the face of Trump fans to do it. I understand the need to scream in their face that they’re wrong. It’s therapeutic. But it’ won’t change anything, and the risks outweigh any possible political benefits.
6. But who am I kidding? We’re pretty much beyond reason at this stage. For far too many people, this isn’t just an election – it’s an ideological war, and enough people on both sides have bullshitted themselves into believing the Other Side must be destroyed like Sauron. And while only a small minority of people may be spoiling for an actual fight, the psychology of the mob mentality has a way of turning otherwise non-violent people into temporary recruits.
Josh Marshall at TPM says as much here. He’s pretty sure it’s only a matter of time before someone gets killed. I hope he’s wrong. But I wouldn’t bet against him.
7. A final note for the anti-Trump Republicans who are aghast at all this ugliness – finally we can agree on something! Except for one thing – sorry, but many of you are complicit. The conservative anger Trump is mining didn’t come from nowhere. That’s the product of a couple of decades worth of GOP political strategy, and now yr reaping the glorious results. And guess what – yr back-up plan is turning out to be the one extremist guy you hate almost as much as Trump. So step up and own it. It’s not like you actually disagree with him on a lot of his rhetoric.
Asking for it,
This is dF
