The Brownshirts Are Coming. But Whose Side Are They On?

OK, the anti-Trump riots in San Jose are scary enough. But as a bonus, we have one Vox editor calling for more riots and a second Juice-Voxer rationalizing exactly that. From Dara Lind's piece, which should have been titled "Give Violence A Chance":

Donald Trump rallies are only going to get more dangerous for everyone

Protesters assaulted Trump supporters outside a rally in San Jose. Here's why this keeps happening.

...

As tension around Trump rallies has shifted outside the arenas, and protesters have become more numerous and more aggressive, some of the people protesting are simply provocateurs. Others are longtime, hardcore "direct action" activists like the anarchist Black Bloc.

...

These are the sorts of people who turn up whenever they see an opportunity to disrupt the status quo. They were in Baltimore in 2015 and Ferguson in 2014.

 

But that doesn't make their presence inevitable. They aren't turning up to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton rallies. Donald Trump's campaign has become a locus for confrontation and instability, and that attracts the sort of people who see violence as an acceptable way to get things done.

And on to the rationalizations:

A lot of political commentators recognize that Donald Trump poses a categorical threat to established norms of American democracy, governance, and society. They believe that he represents (whether intentionally or not) an ideology that is hostile to groups of nonwhite Americans.

In other words, they believe there are Americans to whom Trump poses an existential threat.

I will pause and note that plenty of polling data and mortality statistics suggest that many working class whites believe that Democratic-supported trade deals, immigration policies and Affirmative Action preferences have been hostile and life-threatening) to whites. Are they right? Why ask?!?

You don't have to agree with protesters beating up Trump supporters, or even sympathize with them, to understand this. There are people who feel Trump's rise puts their lives in danger. And many people make decisions about what actions are "appropriate" differently when they feel personally under threat.

Ah, well, if the anti-Trump people believe it their behavior makes sense. But if white people were acting the same way? Haters!

In any case, what else can we do but respond violently in a democracy with a slack media these youngsters don't read anyway?

So if you're a young person who reacts viscerally to the things Donald Trump says about Mexicans or Muslims, what do you see as the available, appropriate response? Furthermore, if you're a young person who personally feels the effects of Trumpist attitudes — if you feel that your life is under threat because you're nonwhite, and you don't feel that anyone appears to care — what do you think needs to be done?

And if violent protests at Trump rallies continue to escalate, and continue to get coverage, what sort of people are likely to show up to the next one?

Wow. First, the notion that banning foreign Muslims or deporting illegal immigrants threatens the lives of "Americans" seems like a stretch. But maybe I am not thinking big enough - opposition to Obamacare or gun control might threaten lives; support for a more aggressive intervention in Syria might threaten lives; opposition to a War on Coal might threaten lives in Bangla Desh in a hundred years. Really, if a protestor can't link their opponent to life and death issues, they aren't trying (Is my local dog-catcher tough enough on rabies???).

Secondly, the probably young and no doubt delightful Dara Lind apparently thought that it goes without saying that this violence is not appropriate in our democracy. But since a different Vox editor, Emmett Rensin, is specifically calling for anti-Trump riots, maybe she ought to say this is wrong.

Otherwise, it looks like Vox is marching to a very strange place.

Comments

[Dave (in MA)]

Why settle for one Brownshirts post when you can have two?

[Beasts of England]

The NeverTrumpers own this, too. 'Never' let them forget it. By othering Trump and declaring him outside of the realm of normal politics, they've provided ideological cover for these lefty brownshirts.

[sbw]

I feel redundundant.

[Tonto]

From the last thread:

"I think there is..a sugar daddy who didn't like Cruz' stance on gay marriage "

Clarice, check your email.

[daddy]

I feel redundundant.

You can say that again!

[Beasts of England]

Welp, it's zero boat thirty, think I'll ice down some PBRs and work on my savage tan. Later, alligators!! 😎

[clarice]

Tonto, I checked my email and there's nothing there.

[Jane]

My Goodness Beasts, if you can't figure out Trump is outside the realm of normal politics without some political magazines, you are living on a different planet.

[Marlene]

How about some good news? We got a fire permit for the week-end!

[boris]

"Trump is outside the realm of normal politics"

Only in the sense JFK and Reagan would now be considered outside the realm of normal politics.

As I wrote earlier:

... it doesn't seem like his unknowns are the problem. My suspicion is some don't want to admit the knowns that are the real problems ...

Trump is not "with the program" when it comes to certain "modern" social issues.

• Muslims
  
• "undocumented" Mexicans
  
• Feminism
  
• Proper Respect for Diversity
  
• Politically Correct Attitudes and Speech

[sbw]

There are two kinds of politics:

1) principled
2) do what you can get away with

When you accuse a politician of doing what he can get away with, he generally accuses you of being unprincipled -- being outside the realm of normal politics.

[Beasts of England]

I think that Bernie is outside the realm of normal politics by promoting socialism. Trump is not saying anything remotely bizarre, unless you think securing our borders and temporarily restricting some immigration is out of bounds. It's all been done before. In much more severe ways.