Quantcast
Connect with us

Desperate Trump supporters push a false equivalence between inciting terrorism and campaign finance transparency

Published

on

- Commentary

Once it became irrefutable that Donald Trump had colluded with a criminal Russian conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 (even if there wasn’t quite enough evidence to charge conspiracy), Trump and his Republican enablers switched tactics. Unable to deny the Russian collusion, instead they leaned on one of Trump’s favorite gambits: Whataboutism, a propaganda technique also heavily favored by Russian president Vladimir Putin. The idea of whataboutism is to throw up a bunch of false equivalences and accuse the “other side” of doing what you do, to make it seem like your critics are hypocrites and that everyone is doing the terrible thing you can no longer pretend you didn’t do.

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was originally published at Salon

In this case, the whataboutism was provided in the form of a bunch of incoherent conspiracy theories around Hillary Clinton paying for some opposition research from a private investigator named Christopher Steele. It required some rather shameless playing dumb from Republicans, who pretended to believe paying someone to legally interview people is the equivalent of working with a foreign government to break American laws, but really the most offensive thing about it wasn’t the illogic of it. It’s that Republicans, en masse, are defending Trump for literally inviting, instructing and covering up for a criminal conspiracy to undermine our democracy.

It seemed like they couldn’t get lower, but in the Trump era, there is always a new low to be reached for. And this time, whataboutism is being employed to defend and normalize Trump using his platform as incitement to mass murder.

To recap, since politics in the age of reality-TV-show-fascism are as complex as they are stupid: On Saturday, a terrorist murdered 22 people at an El Paso, TX shopping mall because, egged on by a white nationalist movement led by Trump, the terrorist believed Hispanics are “invading” the United States and need to be dissuaded through violence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Efforts to deny the direct line between Trump’s rhetoric, as well as his repeated targeting of El Paso specifically, and the terrorist attack have been failing, due to the fact that anyone with two ears and common sense knows Trump and his minions are to blame for this. Unable to deny that Trump’s rhetoric is leading to mass murder, and unwilling to admit that it’s a bad thing to have a president who repeatedly demonizes people based on race and tacitly encourages political violence, they’re moving to the last ditch move, which is to claim Democrats do it too.

Needless to say, the evidence that Democrats, like Trump, incite violence is weak sauce. The straw grasped this time is the fact that Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) tweeted out a list of political donors in his area that have given the maximum donation to Trump’s campaign. Trump’s campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh seized on this, making clearly bad faith claims that this is “inciting violence” and “endangering the safety of the people.” And, since so many people are incredibly desperate to normalize Trump’s racism and incitement to violence, this talking point is spreading like wildfire.

No one actually believes that Castro did anything wrong, to be clear, and 100% of the outrage is being faked in order to create confusion around the question of whether it’s a bad thing that the current president incites racist terrorism.

ADVERTISEMENT

But on the off chance someone is legitimately confused, let’s be clear: Castro did nothing wrong in the slightest. On the contrary, he used a federally managed public database that exists quite literally for the purpose Castro used it for — so the public can know who is using money to influence politics.

In the ’70s, a pair of laws requiring campaigns to keep track of and disclose their campaign contributions passed as part of a larger response to the Watergate scandal and a desire to get corruption out of government. The Supreme Court upheld the law in 1976, and interestingly, the complaint was more focused on the contribution limits and not the disclosure laws.

And since then, there’s been no real controversy over the easily searchable public database of political contributions maintained by the FEC. On the contrary, right up until this week, it was considered standard journalistic practice to use this database to publicly share the names of important campaign donors.

ADVERTISEMENT

The need to know who is influencing our politicians is a critical and non-controversial part of politics. Or it was, until Trump needed a justification for his habit of inciting racist violence. Now it’s “controversial” and sharing this once completely normal information in exactly the way it was intended to be shared is being equated with whipping up white nationalists until they decide to shoot up a shopping center.

The particulars of the “debate” are frankly unimportant, since it was started in bad faith and being perpetuated by people who are either too stupid to know better or too evil to care. What matters here is not what nonsense Trump and his supporters are throwing up to confuse the issue of whether or not it’s wrong for Trump to stoke racism and violence.

What matters is that they are trying to defend Trump, a bigot who regularly goads his supporters to violence with not-joke jokes, and their tactic is to spread the lie that Trump’s winking at violence is normal and fine. Because that is what they are doing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump and his defenders know they can’t just come out and say they think it’s fine that he paints people of color as a threat to the nation. They can’t just bluntly say that they don’t really object to his egging people on to violence. Then they will be seen as the monsters they are. So they create these fake controversies meant to confuse the issue, distract from the important matters, and, above all else, create noble-sounding justifications for the monstrous choice to support Trump in his racism and his winking endorsements of violence.

That is what matters here: Trump’s racist leadership is getting people killed. And anyone who plays along with efforts to confuse the issue is complicit.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

David Cay Johnston explains how Trump’s trade tariffs are really a tax on his base

Published

on

Candidate Donald Trump railed against America’s chronic trade deficits, vowing to eliminate them if he became president.

So, how’s Trump doing? Awful. Trade deficits are growing on his watch.

The overall trade deficit in September was 21% larger than during his first full month in office.

In 2016, under President Barak Obama, America imported $502.9 billion more in goods and services than it sold in exports.

In 2018, under Trump, that ballooned to $627.7 billion, an increase of $124.7 billion, and the deficit is on pace to run even deeper in 2019. For the nine months ending in September, the overall trade deficit was $481.3 billion, up $24.8 billion for the same period of 2018.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Is Virginia’s ‘blue wave’ election a sign the GOP is a dying party?

Published

on

Last week, Virginia voters made history in multiple ways. Not only did they give Democrats unified control of state government for the first time since 1993, but in doing so, along with recent federal elections, they returned Virginia to the ranks of solid blue states for the first time since 1948.  And if that’s not a long enough time-span, they also elected Ghazala Hashmi, the first female Muslim state senator in the legislature that passed America’ first religious freedom statute in 1786,

“This is the third straight message that we sent to the president,” said Chris Bolling, executive director of the Virginia Democratic Party. “It’s three consecutive times that voters in Virginia are firmly rejecting the president and his policies, and we will continue doing so in 2020, and we’ll make this his last year in office,” he told Salon “That's what I think the larger national takeaway from what happened in Virginia is.”

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Who is Rudy Giuliani’s friend ‘Charles’? An accidental text may have outed his identity

Published

on

At the end of September, a journalist friend gave me Rudy Giuliani’s phone number. When I called, he picked up on the second ring and promptly divulged previously unreported details about his collaboration with State Department officials on a quid pro quo this summer. Those conversations helped inform a report I filed with BuzzFeed, which was corroborated the next day in testimony and text messages from former Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image