By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Trump’s poorly attended military parade, ostensibly celebrating the Army’s anniversary, served as an authoritarian spectacle designed to bolster his image and potentially incite unrest. Simultaneously, massive “No Kings” protests, numbering in the millions, demonstrated widespread opposition to his actions and rhetoric. Trump responded with escalating threats, targeting Democrat-led cities and deploying inflammatory language, suggesting a deliberate strategy to destabilize the country. Experts warn of a potential escalation of violence and the erosion of democratic norms, drawing parallels to historical authoritarian regimes.
Read the original article here
As his support drops, Trump will “lash out in dangerous, unimaginable ways.” This isn’t a prediction based on subtle shifts in behavior; it’s a conclusion drawn from a pattern of escalating actions already underway. The current trajectory suggests a significant increase in erratic and potentially harmful behavior as his perceived power diminishes.
As his grip on power loosens, we can anticipate a surge in reckless decision-making. He’s demonstrated a willingness to disregard established norms and procedures, prioritizing personal grievances and fueling conflicts for perceived political gain. The risk of impulsive actions with far-reaching consequences increases dramatically as his support wanes.
This isn’t solely about impulsive actions; it’s about a calculated strategy of escalation. Facing diminished support, he might adopt a scorched-earth approach, aiming to create chaos and sow discord to undermine his opponents and consolidate his remaining power base. This could manifest in intensified rhetoric, increased attacks on institutions, and the weaponization of various branches of power against perceived enemies.
The potential consequences extend beyond domestic policy. Foreign policy decisions will likely become even more unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Already demonstrating disregard for international norms and alliances, the decline in his domestic support could embolden him to make rash moves in foreign affairs, jeopardizing international relations and increasing the risk of global conflict.
His responses to criticism and perceived threats have consistently been characterized by aggression and a tendency to double down on controversial statements. A reduction in support will likely only amplify these tendencies, potentially leading to a significant escalation in inflammatory rhetoric and actions. The fear is not just of impulsive actions, but of deliberate actions designed to destabilize the system and maintain his relevance.
There’s a real concern that his reaction to dwindling support might be to dramatically increase his efforts to suppress dissent and consolidate power. This could involve exploiting existing fault lines in society, amplifying existing grievances, and using rhetoric to further polarize the population.
We’ve already seen glimpses of this pattern in his past actions. The deployment of military forces domestically, the inflammatory language targeting political opponents, and his responses to protests all point to a willingness to employ increasingly extreme methods to maintain control or retaliate against perceived adversaries. A decline in support will likely embolden this behavior.
The danger is not merely in unpredictable actions; it’s in the potential for calculated manipulation of events. He might instigate conflicts or crises to distract from his diminishing support, creating an environment where extreme measures appear necessary to restore “order.” This could lead to a suspension of democratic processes or even a complete disregard for constitutional norms.
The possibility of utilizing international conflicts to deflect from domestic problems shouldn’t be overlooked. He might escalate tensions with foreign adversaries, using the resulting crisis to justify authoritarian measures at home. This scenario presents a significant threat to both national and international stability.
This isn’t about mere speculation; it’s about recognizing the patterns of his past behavior and extrapolating those patterns to predict potential future actions. The history of authoritarian leaders shows a clear tendency towards escalation when their grip on power is threatened. The concern is not just about the potential for violence, but about the systematic undermining of democratic processes and institutions.
The question isn’t whether his actions will become more extreme; it’s about the extent of that extremism and the potential consequences. The escalating unpredictability and disregard for norms should be a significant cause for concern. The scale of the potential consequences is what makes this a truly dangerous situation. Ignoring the potential for “unimaginable” actions is to invite precisely the outcome we are hoping to avoid.