By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Fox News appearance, Donald Trump made controversial statements regarding political violence. He falsely accused the left of instigating much of the nation’s political violence while seemingly excusing right-wing extremism. Trump further stated that the right is “tougher” than the left, warning the left against provoking the right, implying the potential for violent repercussions. Political scientists and news outlets like Axios have since reacted to these statements, describing Trump’s words as threatening and as potentially inflaming already tense political climates.
Read the original article here
Asked about violence, Trump’s warning to the left not to provoke the right, and his assertion of the right’s “tougher” nature, opens a complex and unsettling discussion. The statement, at its core, places blame on a segment of the population for potential violence, a dangerous game of deflection that can have serious consequences.
The core of the problem lies in the implication of a threat. “Bad things happen” is a vague but menacing statement, particularly when combined with the warning not to “energize” the other side. This is not simply a call for calm; it’s a warning that the actions of one group, the left, could trigger violence from another, the right. This shifts responsibility and subtly encourages a climate of fear and self-censorship. It suggests that the right is inherently prone to violence and that the left’s actions are somehow the catalyst.
This perspective is further fueled by the assertion that those aligned with Trump are “tougher.” The use of this word is loaded. It’s not about strength in terms of intellect, diplomacy, or resilience; it’s about a perceived physical or combative prowess. It aligns with a certain type of identity – the “tough guy” persona, the one who might wear 3 percenter shirts or make claims of military experience. These are often empty bravado, a performative aspect of an identity that can be fragile and easily triggered.
The core question that the warning brings up is whether the right is actually “tougher” in the way Trump implies, ready to act on their impulses? If they are, then the warning takes on a sinister implication. The claim of being “tougher” could translate to a willingness to use violence, and this becomes a direct endorsement of violence.
Furthermore, the warning itself is a contradiction of the ideals of fair play and justice. By suggesting that the left is responsible for the actions of the right, it undermines the principle that each person is accountable for their own behavior. This perspective is also in line with a tactic commonly seen in fascist ideologies. It also echoes the language used by abusive individuals, where the abuser blames the victim for provoking the violence, instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.
The historical context of this rhetoric is also important. The right has frequently and openly threatened violence during left-leaning administrations. The very idea of an impending “civil war” is not a new concept.
The statement raises further questions. Who are the “left” and “right” in this context? Are these simply two political parties? It’s an oversimplification that plays into the dangerous concept of division.
The real danger is that such statements can embolden extremists, validate their violent inclinations, and make it more likely that “bad things happen.” Trump’s choice of words and the way he frames the scenario are not accidental. They are deliberate attempts to appeal to a certain segment of the population, to energize them, and to cast them as the defenders of a threatened way of life.
The language used is also reminiscent of tactics used in propaganda, such as the use of vague language and the denial of accountability. It’s a tactic that often uses coded language to bypass traditional modes of communication. It’s a form of deniability – the speaker can later claim that they never intended to incite violence, that their words were misinterpreted.
The warning can be viewed as an attempt to manufacture a conflict. By emphasizing the threat of violence from the right, while simultaneously blaming the left for “provoking” that violence, he creates a narrative that justifies and encourages the very thing he purports to be warning against.
It’s a warning that doesn’t promote peace or understanding. Instead, it promotes fear, division, and a willingness to accept violence as an acceptable political tool. The phrase also carries a chilling echo of the language used in the lead-up to horrific events, where the “other” is dehumanized and portrayed as a threat that must be met with force. This is not leadership; it’s incitement.