President Trump recently used the word “bloodbath” if he does not win the November presidential election. Ever since January 6, 2021, Democrats have been predicting political violence from Trump supporters.
While Team Trump says that the use of “bloodbath” was only an expression used in terms of the impact on the auto industry if he does not win. As with so much of Trump’s language, its pugnacious nature is easily open to interpretation. For more than three years, warnings of rightwing violence have been a mainstay in the Democrats’ political narrative.
Despite the Democrats crying wolf about pending violence coming from the right – and despite Trump’s maladroit and provocative language – there has been little evidence to support claims of pending violence. In fact, considering the emotional character of the 2024 campaigns, there has been amazingly little political violence.
If we look at political violence from a historical perspective, we will see periods of political violence far surpassing anything we see today. There is the Civil War, of course. But we can also see the labor-related violence of the early Twentieth Century.
And then we have the 1960s – the worst era of political violence since the Civil War. In that decade alone, we suffered the assassinations of a President … a senator and presidential candidate … and the most important civil rights leader of the era. Another presidential candidate was shot and crippled.
Anti-war forces carried out bombings in a number of cities. Large swaths of America’s ghettoes were torched in violent and deadly riots. The National Guard had to be called out on a regular basis in one city after another. A rioting student was shot and killed during a protest on a college campus. The Democratic National Convention was held under siege in Chicago, with protestors and police violently clashing on the streets.
In the decades that followed, there were two assassination attempts on President Ford and President Reagan was seriously wounded in yet another. The mayor of San Francisco and a city supervisor were assassinated.
By comparison, the first quarter of the Twenty-First Century has been remarkably devoid of political violence. The single most violent political event was the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill. This despite repeated – and baseless — warnings and predictions from Democrats that supporters of President Trump were gearing up for a violent takeover of the government.
All their wolf-crying predictions of specific violence failed to materialize. You will recall how they predicted an outbreak of violence at the Capitol and around the country on the first anniversary of the Capitol Hill riot. Unlike January 6, 2021, predictions of violence on the anniversary had House Speaker Pelosi calling for the National Guard and building a perimeter fence around the Capitol. And what happened? Nothing. Approximately 200 people appeared on the Capitol grounds – with a permit – gave a few speeches and went home. No violence.
Again Democrats – with the help of their media allies – had spread the fear of violent eruptions if Trump was indicted. Trump, himself, suggested that possibility. And again … nothing happened. There was hardly even a notable level of protest – other than a few folks who gathered outside Mar-a-Lago.
With Democrats pushing the violent uprising so hard, you might expect the leftwingers in Hollywood to chime in – and you would be right. It is a movie titled “Civil War” – a fictional account of a civil war that breaks out after the assassination of the President.
Los Angeles film critic Scott Mantz appeared on CNN with Abby Phillips to promote the movie. Mantz gave it his highest praise – and tied it to the political situation today. He connected the move with the current presidential campaign. He said such a civil war in America is “plausible,” and that it “could happen” as soon as this November. Both Mantz and Phillips proffered the notion that America is already “close to the brink of civil war.”
At times, it has been difficult to discern if Democrats and the leftwing media were predicting violence or hoping to encourage it. And one would be sorely mistaken if you think Trump’s bellicose language – bad as it can get — is a precursor to political violence.
The Democrats’ and Trump’s language may be seen as reckless. But if you monitor the pulse of the public – and examine the recent history — there is no evident interest in taking up pitchforks and torches now or in the future – whether Trump wins or loses.
Democrats and Trump would be better served – as would the American people – if they stop making baseless predictions of violence or gratuitously using provocative language.
We are not on the verge of pervasive political violence – and most certainly not a Civil War. Be calm. The Republic is safe and secure.
So, there ‘tis.