Why is the crowd angry? Because Trump tears us with bigotry and hatred.

President Trump and the Republicans adopted a closing election strategy that portrays the Democratic Party and the "anger" protests of the left against the Trumpian regime as the only real threat to the civic fabric and the rule of law. our country. A new republican national committee video juxtaposes the images of dominant Democratic personalities with those of angry demonstrators, while decrying "the left" as an "unbridled mob".

As absurd as this mixture may be, he sneaked into the general debate, where he was the subject of a near-respectful hearing, in the form of a public debate as to whether the Democrats "lower arm "or tacit voters to violence, or, by adopting the media tactics of Michael Avenatti, succumb to the" Avenatti-ism ".

But the resulting debate on this issue is largely hollow, because it does not bring to the forefront these fundamental realities: Trump, more than an influential figure in the United States today, has actively sought to stir up civil conflict on as many fronts as possible. He concertedly flouted the rule of law, not only to shirk accountability, but, more specifically, for present purposes, for the purpose of deliberately excite his minority group – and to anger millions of people on the other side of the cultural divide – a way that is completely corrupt at its core.

Attending this gaping hole in the debate comes down to watching a team of doctors diagnose a patient with advanced brain cancer without recognizing the existence of his tumor.

The New York Times reports this morning on how Democrats deviate from Michelle Obama's creed: "When they go low, we go high." The offensive evidence? Eric Holder says, "When they go down, we kick them." Avenatti advises, "When they go down, I answer them harder." Hillary Clinton says, "You can not be civil with a political party who wants to destroy what you want. represent."

The Times sees this as an argument among Democrats as to whether it is possible to fight Trump's "insults" without "slipping into a pale imitation" of him. In this story, the question is whether the Democrats will play the "rage" of their base at Trump down to his "tonal" level, as if the Democrats decided to engage in a battle in a high school cafeteria .

A dishonest nonsense of Republicans

Republicans have of course used these words to say that Democrats incite violence. It's nonsense. The meaning of these quotes is clear: it is a statement that desperate times call for stricter procedural, political and electoral measures – an insistence that Democrats must take into account the real goals and the the nature of Republican countermeasures, Trump's illiberal authoritarian policy and the overlap between the two.

But nonetheless, the Times article states that such Democrat's "risk-of-hand" exhortations of Trump and Republicans are considering the prospect of a democratic takeover as a victory for the "mob." ". This is reminiscent of how much this debate has played among journalists and commentators.

But characterizing the argument in this way places it in favor of Trump and the Republicans because he does not recognize the agency from them. He treats the anger on the Democratic side as existing in some kind of void, as if the previous behavior of Trump and the Republicans had not played any role in the current deterioration.

To sum up: Trump has spent the last 18 months actively fueling civil strife by deliberate and deliberate provocations on as many cultural and racial fronts as possible. It is important to note that we know that he has done it to please his followers, sometimes abusing the presidential power to do so, because the reports have proven it.

After Trump blamed white supremacist violence for "many sides" rather than unambiguously condemning it, Trump felt "justified" because he thought his base would comfort him. Stephen K. Bannon then candidly suggested that the resulting racial conflict was a winner for Trump, after which Trump repeated his formulation of "many sides". Trump forgave corruption, Joe Arpaio, who victimized and abused countless Latinos, after concluding that it was "a way to please his political base." Trump has launched attacks against prominent African American athletes. for the act of protesting against systemic racism in the belief that it "improves its political base".

Trump did everything possible to attack Christine Blasey Ford at a rally, not despite it, but because of, the fact that it would be further polarize a country already torn apart by the Battle of Brett Kavanaugh. After winning the case, Trump called his claims a "hoax", dismissing with contempt the millions of people who deeply believed that Ford deserved serious treatment as a symbol of mass victimization through sexual assault. A lot republicans have also adopted this course of action – in a sense, the strategy of the "angry mob" is itself disdainful of the values ​​and political aspirations of these millions of people.

Yes, some leftists have gone too far

Here, it must be said that, yes, some protesters left have gone too far. Yes, in general, it's bad to drive people out of restaurants, to threaten people, and to break property. Yes, there is a real distinction between legitimate political dissent, so angry and rowdy, and real crowd action. But as Brian Beutler says, Republicans in bad faith single examples of the latter – to divert the attention of the true source of the illiberal and authoritarian forces that have dispersed in the country.

So, a thoughtful conservative like David French laments that "the action of the progressive crowd" is a real danger and asserts that this action is far more illegitimate than the "lock-up" songs at rallies "Controlled entry". These slogans "lock it up" do not occur in a closed televised universe that has no bearing on Trump's continued degradation of the rule of law and his efforts to stir up civil discord. These are highly publicized manifestations of the illiberal and authoritarian forces that currently constitute the real danger for civil peace and democracy.

There has been a "mobilization" on both sides and it is a problem on both sides. But again, it's a state of affairs that Trump wants and is actively engaged in arousing with 18 months of deliberate provocation, often with the consent or cooperation of Republicans. To debate the "angry crowd" and the flirtation of the Democrats with "incivility" without all this being absolutely in the foreground is pure madness.