Saturday, 9 January 2021

What if it wasn't Trumpists?

      Some defenders of Donald Trump have been trying to claim that real troublemakers at the Capitol riot on January 6 of this year might have been Antifa infiltrators, perhaps trying to make Trump look bad. This is a pretty preposterous idea, but let’s take it at face value for the sake of argument. In fact, let’s go all the way and presume that all of the rioters, every single one of them, were there specifically for the purpose of discrediting Trump and his movement, and that all the real Trumpists were all perfectly nonviolent and understood that they should under no circumstances give even the appearance of a threat of violence, and so they scrupulously avoided any kind of unlawfulness. Fine. Let’s say that’s the case, and that 100% of the mayhem was deliberately engineered by a coalition of Antifa, BLM, Democrats and never-Trumpers, just to embarrass Trump.

     That doesn’t exonerate him, and indeed maybe makes it even worse. Why? Because Trump's own actions made it way, way too easy for the rioters to fool us all into believing they were his supporters. He goaded on a crowd with his speech, and whether he actually meant for them to force their way into the Capitol and break stuff, anyone in that crowd could be forgiven for believing that’s what he did mean. It was a completely plausible interpretation, and if it was a misinterpretation, it was a completely predictable one. In failing to predict it, Trump essentially gave his enemies a blank cheque, which they predictably would have cashed. 

     Now, I don’t actually believe that any of the rioters were secretly Antifa. The simplest, most parsimonious explanation is that they were exactly what they appeared to be: a mob of Trump dupes and deplorables. There might also have been a few foreign intelligence agents seizing the opportunity to gain access to the Capitol and plant listening devices or steal laptops, but again, Trump himself bears the blame for creating that opportunity. It never could have happened but for his ill-conceived encouragement. 

     So it really isn’t a defence of Trump to allege that the riot was carried out by his enemies. It’s true, though, because he is and always has been his own worst enemy.


  1. As usual, you nailed it... an incompetent violence loving Madman in a position of Power is a loose Canon and causes much collateral damage, whether 'intentionally' or not... but his intentions usually are pretty clear, albeit poorly orchestrated, just like all his business failures.

    1. Thanks for your comment. It's kind of poetic, Trump's failures. I gather he never actually intended to win the election in 2016, just thought that a big run for the White House would boost his brand. It seems the only time he can actually succeed at something is when he's trying to fail.

    2. It's interesting you said that because I too thought he never actually intended to win that 2016 Election and was putting on a Show. He knew he hadn't a clue what to do when he won so he just kept grandstanding and then had the delusion he could be King Donnie. I agree, the only time he can actually succeed is when he's trying to fail, because failing comes so naturally to him and it's the one thing he is actually terrified of... Failure.

    3. Except I don't think it's actually failure he's terrified of so much as it's the trappings of failure: being CALLED a loser bothers him much more than actually BEING a loser. And I think this is because he does not understand the substance of things; he only looks at the superficial trappings. Fran Liebowitz once said he is a poor person's idea of a rich person. That doesn't mean he's not rich; it means that he concerns himself with exhibiting the traits of rich people that poor people can see.

      I've added to that. I think he's also a weak person's idea of a strong person, a stupid person's idea of a smart person, a coward's idea of a brave person. Again, he doesn't understand what it is to actually BE strong or smart or brave, because he only sees the surface of these things from the outside, and so it's that outside that he tries to project.

    4. Astute assessment by both you and Fran. He has no substance because he does not understand the substance of things is a profound description and of what it attracts.

  2. Good analysis and quite correct. No left wing no matter how nutcase would ever do what Trumps thugs did on January 6th.