Rick Perlstein: "What Democrats Need to Know About Violence at Trump Rallies"

[99th_Monkey]

I do not necessarily agree with this assessment, that protesting Trump is good for
Trump's campaign; but I think --given the gravity of the stakes-- it is a worthwhile
discussion for Democrats to be having, and apparently this buy Rick Perlstein is near
the center of the storm. Please use this string as you will, to discuss this, as the
future of our country is at stake in this race.

_______________________________

What Democrats Need to Know About Violence at Trump Rallies
Does rioting make Trump stronger?
By Rick Perlstein * Alternet/Washington Spectator * June 26, 2016

This spring, Donald Trump added a new phrase to the stock of improvised riffs he throws out at his rallies: “I love my protesters.” And if my Twitter mentions are any indication, there are a lot of people who think they know why: disruptions inside or outside Trump’s events just might help elect him president.

Wrote one, a conservative: #Dems need to read @rickperlstein’s #Nixonland (#Liberalism gone amok led to riots, causing #conservative backlash.)” Liberals agree. “Rioting only makes Trump stronger,” wrote Esquire’s Charlie Pierce, linking to a clip of police responding to window-smashing and poster-burning at a Trump event in Albuquerque.

The syllogism is simple: first in 1966 with Ronald Reagan, then in 1968 and 1972 with Richard Nixon, Republicans ascended to higher office by pinning on the Democrats responsibility for riots and disruptive protests carried out on the left, successfully framing themselves (as I detailed in my 2008 book Nixonland) as the preservers of order and decorum in a society that seemed to be falling into chaos.

“Things are going to hell.”

“We need an ass-kicker in the White House.”

And presto, a generation of Republican presidents. Just read Rick Perlstein!

Well, I love my readers, conservative and liberal both. But the people using my historical work to make this particular argument need to read it less selectively and more attentively.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/what-know-about-trump-rallies

[Blanks]

1. I wondered about that early on...

It makes him like like he's standing up to this 'bad element', hopefully people will stop going to Trump rallies (to protest) and attend Hillary rallies instead.

[Human101948]

2. In many cases, the "protesters" were Republican agitators...

As a veteran of the Vietnam protest era, I can personally attest to incitement by paid agitators and undercover police. We know for a fact that George "Poppy" Bush's campaign sent out operatives to burn American flags to inflame the passions of the less informed.

I strongly suspect that most of the "protesters" at Trump rallies are paid actors and thugs.

[Hortensis]

3. Trump as the pig on a platter spoiler.

Seems to me there's definitely something to it -- for mainstream voters who have too much to be interested in rioting.

That still leaves the hopeful populist barn-burners on both the right and the far left. Anyone remember the "letting-it-all-out" fad back some time in the 1980s? Controlling, i.e., bottling it up, like a grownup was supposed to be bad for you, getting it out healthy. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it turned out that letting it all out makes people more angry, not less.

Already people are talking up front on line, and no doubt in secret, about uniting the populist and extremist "anti-" anger of both the right and radical left. If they were to succeed - Katie, bar the door!